So for those who missed it, my off-the-cuff snarky post about disliking the first volume of 100 Bullets sparked off a snarky rebuttal by Heidi at the Beat, and then a subsequent feeding frenzy.
Most of said frenzy focused on my misidentification of the artist for the cover below:
I originally said it was done by Eduardo Risso, the interior artist; instead, apparently, it was done by a fellow of the name of Dave Johnson.
Anyway, many commenters (and Heidi) felt strongly that if I couldn’t tell Eduardo Risso from Dave Johnson, I didn’t deserve to call myself a comics critic. Very different artists, both long time greats of the industry, etc. etc. Heidi said my opinion was “uninformed”, and who has time for uninformed opinions?
But is my opinion really uninformed? By what standards? Why do I need to know who these guys are in order to judge one (1) trade paperback and talk in more depth about one (1) cover? Indeed, besides the misattribution, what did I say, specifically, about that one cover that was incorrect? Here’s the passage:
What is wrong with that woman’s neck? Is this supposed to be a Parmigianino tribute or something? And the proportions are all completely off; her legs are lengthened to make her look sexier, I guess, but it ends up looking like she’s been assembled from mis-matched doll parts. And the ugly red insets segmented up almost at random…what the hell? That’s not dramatic: it just looks dumb.
Between my blog and Heidi’s, there were about sixty commenters; maybe more. Several people objected to the word “dumb” on the ground that…well, Dave Johnson’s great. Mark Waid weighed in to say he was friends with Dave, and the plural of medium is not “mediums” and that culture is coming to an end because some schmuck on the internet disagrees with him. But nobody — not one person — argued that the cover was good. Nobody said, “you know, her neck really is in exactly the right proportion.” Nobody said, “those floating red panels — that’s great layout!” So apparently, the cover is indefensible — or, at the very least, nobody tried to defend it.
Instead, everyone preferred to talk about connoiseurship. Connoiseurship is, of course, the process of showing that you’re an elite by dropping trou and pulling out the uber-knowledge. It’s the James Bond approach to criticism — “yes, this is a ’69 chablis,” or whatever. It’s basically about having a huge reservoir of trivia which you can use to demonstrate that you’re part of an in-group.
A lot of criticism, in any media (or mediums, I guess), is not about whether or not you’re actually entertained, or what you think about a piece. In one way or another, it’s about connoiseurship — or, as they say:
How many artists does it take to put together a trade of 100 Bullets?
Come on, Noah…don’t you know?
The simple fact is, I don’t know. And I don’t know because, quite frankly, contemporary mainstream comic art bores me to tears. Show me twelve different middle-drawer contemporary mainstream comic artists, and I’ll show you an indifferent, clumsy, poorly designed wasteland. I don’t know the difference between Risso and Johnson because I. Don’t. Care.
But, if I don’t care, doesn’t that disqualify me? How dare I express and opinion? Why did I read the book? Horror of horrors, and etc.
Here’s the thing. If you insist that only people who care criticize books, you tend to end up with only positive reviews — because people who don’t care (like me) don’t usually spend all their waking hours reading and researching the stuff they dislike. If you insist that only people who care criticize books, you rapidly get into a self-reinforcing, insular feedback loop, where in order to talk about the medium, you have to be invested in a particular way which ensures that you’ll only talk about the medium in a particular way. If you go down this path far enough, you turn into contemporary poetry, where the only people who want to read it are the poets themselves. And maybe their mothers. Oh, yeah, and grant committees.
The comics we’re talking about here aren’t arcane. They’re not difficult to follow. This is basic pulp noir. It’s a popular medium. I don’t need to be “informed” about who Dave Johnson is to understand pulp noir. I don’t need to know what awards Eduardo Risso has won to evaluate pulp noir. It’s fucking pulp noir. And you know what? Both of these artists do lousy pulp noir in similar ways because they’re both mainstream comics artists. And, late-breaking bulletin — their work isn’t incredibly different. Unless, of course, all you do all day everyday is look at boring contemporary mainstream comics art. In which case — hallelujah! — you too can be a comics critic.
Update: Well, Heidi at the Beat closed down the comments thread over there this morning because of my rudeness. I was a little startled; I hadn’t actually flamed anyone but Mark Waid, who seemed to be raring for a fight; otherwise everything seemed quite civil: I quite enjoyed the posts towards the end even. But maybe my time on the TCJ message board has just ruined my sense of appropriate behavior. Or perhaps Heidi was just sick of me — and who can blame her?
Anyway, I hope folks are scrolling down through the comments here. Tucker and Matthew Brady do both mount defenses of the cover in question, Derik admits he doesn’t know who Mark Waid is, various people try to make me sneer at non-horror buffs…it’s pretty entertaining. And if you want to post, you can be just about as rude to me as you’d like. I won’t shut you down…though I might flame you back.
Update: And Chris Mautner weighs in at Newsarama
I’ve got to say, if I’d know that vast Internet fame awaited me as soon as I misidentified a mainstream artist, I would have done it much sooner.
Also, summary of my related flame war with Mark Waid here
“Caring” is not what is required. However, a minimal amount of research about the subject critiqued should be. Otherwise, the essay can be sloppy and appear ill-informed.
Such is the case with your original post on “100 Bullets”.
Yep, got that bit the first twelve times it showed up in comments. But the burning question is…do you like that cover?
I have no problem with any well-reasoned critique of an illustration or story. You don’t like the cover–fair enough.
But a critique loses some of its foundation when the critic makes obvious errors of misidentification.
And I would take issue with the blanket condemnation of all “mainstream comic artists”. Such artists can only do “lousy” pulp noir?
I guess this begs the larger question of what is mainstream, and what is not. Risso’s style is fairly distinctive, and I find it quite removed from many “mainstream” comic artists.
Ultimately, I guess I need a bit more buttressing of your argument against the issue. Personally, snarkiness does not win you any points, but a smarty written argument that might cause an indifferent–or even hostile–reader to take pause and reconsider is always a welcome read.
That should be “smartly” in the third to last line.
Okay, here’s my attempt at a defense of the cover:
I would say that her neck looks awkward, but it’s emphasized by her hairstyle, which gives weight to the left side of her head and makes it seem more askew than it really is. I also like how “meaty” he makes the legs look, unlike the sticks that superheroines usually stand on. They have a real shape and definition, and you can even see the seam in her stockings. And the way her hips are just slightly cocked as she turns to face the viewer gives a nice, sultry look to her. By the way, this is probably the most clothing she ever wears in any image of her during the series; not that that bears on the quality of the image, but I figured it’s worth mentioning.
As for the red boxes, they’re an interesting mish-mash of elements that factor into the story, and the way they’re segmented brings to mind the intricate backstory of the series, which is beginning to come together even at this early date. I like the way the blue spot coloring makes certain elements stand out, giving an eye-burning “pop” to the diverse images.
So while it’s definitely not my favorite of Johnson’s covers, I don’t think it’s terrible, and I do think it succeeds at selling the story within.
Maybe not the best critique, but I figured somebody had to rise to the challenge.
I don’t particularly like that cover, I do like most of Johnson’s other covers, and I really like Risso’s interior art for 100 Bullets. If by “mainstream,” you mean (as I suspect) DC and Marvel, then I am not someone who reads much of their comics, but I can say that Risso is pretty damn far from my idea of “middle-drawer contemporary mainstream comic artists.” If you think Risso is a standard mainstream comic artist, it makes me think you don’t actually look at many standard mainstream comics. His art is distinctive, he uses blacks and solid areas well and is perhaps one of the few modern noir artists who can do so without inevitably recalling Frank Miller, because he uses it with restraint. His character design is perhaps his best attribute, he does a stellar job of visually defining and personalizing what comes to be, in later volumes, a staggeringly huge cast of characters.
What’s weird to me is that, since you originally set out to attack Risso’s art by focusing on this one example, presumably you have other examples from that 1st volume (that really are by Risso) with which you could support your low opinion of him. Why not post some (one even!) rather than continuing to harp on this one cover? Risso only gets better over the course of the series, more assured, but even the 1st volume is fairly strong artwise in my opinion (Azzarello’s plotting doesn’t come into its own until a bit later).
Oh yeah, I was also going to add that her legs may be elongated, but she is also wearing high heels, which do have the effect of making legs appear longer. I even did the research of finding a real-life example. Okay, I’ll shut up about this now. Even my wife thinks the cover is horrible. But I tried.
Noah,
Dave Johnson is one of the most overrated artists in corporate comics, and the cover blows chunks. I wouldn’t let anyone who gets kneejerk defensive about criticism of it affect you one way or the other. Here’s my review of Johnson’s “sketchbook” from 2004…if anything, that cover is worse than the hackwork that was in the sketchbook.
100 Bullets is also highly overrated — I can see the slight visual appeal in Risso’s Sin City-aping stylization, but your comments on the writing were dead-on. Because Azzarello can turn a script in on time and fill it with fanboy-pleasing “maturity,” the series is seen as groundbreaking and edgy, when in fact it is mediocre at best. The high concept of it having a definitive ending and (if I recall correctly) that it’s supposed to run 100 issues (a conceit even a dope like Geoff Johns could have thought of, when taking a break from playing with his action figures in the tub to generate new ideas for Green Lantern) probably gives it additional profundity for mouth-breathing superhero addicts who want to tell themselves their tastes are improving.
Noah –
If you came across a post by someone who had watched 15 minutes of Prince of Darkness and had extrapolated from those 15 minutes that John Carpenter obviously must be one of the worst horror movie directors ever, wouldn’t you at least think (even if you weren’t moved to respond) that they should really watch The Thing before making that kind of statement?
I mean, it’s one thing to bash Johnson (or even, say, Kim Deitch) after looking at a bunch of his stuff , but when you bash him based on a cover that you happen to have on hand it seems to me you’re inviting the kind of knee jerk response you got.
The connoisseurship question is interesting, but, again, how seriously would you take the opinion of someone who can’t tell the difference between CLAMP and Ai Yazawa? I mean, from an outsider’s perspective, it might look like they’re doing the same thing. Not that this perspective is invalid or that it might not result in some really interesting and pertinent observations/criticism, but it seems like “Dude, you don’t know what you’re talking about” would be a pretty valid response.
Hey Matt. I think the defense of the anatomy works better than the defense of the red boxes; I still don’t buy it, but kudos for the effort.
Ed, I did talk about the page that Heidi posted, which is better than the stuff in 100 Bullets, I think….
And wow, Alan, that cover to the Dave Johnson sketchbook is *horrible*. That expression — did she just sit in something foul? Sheesh.
Peter, snark is the fun part. Why write without snark? It’s like eating cereal without the milk — it’s dry, it’s cardboardy, and it’s not nearly as nutritious.
Jon…see, this is the part I don’t quite get. I didn’t say (at least initially) that Johnson or Risso was the worst artist ever or anything like that. I said I didn’t like their work in these instances. I even went back and said that the page Heidi posted of Risso’s work seemed — not great, but OK. And I said in the initial post that it seemed possible that the series got better (which was mostly referring to the writing, but could apply to the art as well, I think.)
For the Prince of Darkness thing…if I saw somebody say that that movie was lousy and so was John Carpenter, I’d say, yeah, the movie sucks, and a lot of his movies are bad, but the Thing is great — you should see it. Basically I’d do what Ed’s done here. I really don’t tend to assume or feel strongly that anyone should have seen any particular piece of art. Culture is vast, different people have different interests, and there really just isn’t any moral component attached to seeing or not seeing anything.
The Clamp/Ai Yazawa question…. It would depend on what the person said, I think. I could see somebody saying things about those artists that I agreed with even if they didn’t necessarily separate them out. You can talk about shojo art in general, I think, and make good points about it without zoning in on differences between individual artists. I’d probably point out that they were different people, but I don’t think I’d use it as an excuse to disqualify what they said. If they were saying they disliked shojo for reasons that made sense (girly, frilly,whatever) I’d probably try to explain why I liked it…and maybe suggest some manga they might prefer, if that seemed appropriate. But, yeah, I absolutely think it would be possible for me to learn something from a writer who didn’t know the difference between those two artists. I wouldn’t discount their opinion just because of that, anyway.
Good examples, though. Made me think.
“If you go down this path far enough, you turn into contemporary poetry, where the only people who want to read it are the poets themselves. And maybe their mothers. Oh, yeah, and grant committees.”
Ouch.
I often wonder at the utility of negative criticism, beyond the snark factor (which admittedly is fun). Is there a persuasion element here? You convincing people why something is bad? An attempt to take down the over-hyped? An attempt to shake people from their malaise of bad taste?
Personally, I tend to focus on reviewing things I like in an attempt to figure out why, what does work. I guess it’s mostly personal for me, figuring out what works to improve my own reading and creating.
I do agree the cover is bad. I’m not enough of masochist to actually try reading the comic though.
Hey Derik. Well, criticism for me is an aesthetic endeavor…and I don’t see aesthetics as necessarily utilitarian. Or, to put it another way, a piece of criticism is designed to be beautiful or to entertain, depending on how pompous you want to be about it. I’m not necessarily trying to persuade anybody of anything. Sparking conversation is fun, though, whether with folks like Alan, who agree with me, or with those like Jon, who don’t. I even kind of enjoy the flame wars, to be honest. I mean, I got the chance to insult Mark Waid to his face. Twice. What more justification for the review do I need?
You know something? I don't really like that drawing of Megan on the cover. But I do like the red boxes. They look like something out of Mannix, or a movie poster of the Rat Pack, and considering that I read a good portion of the crew of 100 as a mix of Rat Pack hard men as well as being indebted to the overall weirdness of the Mannix backstory, I think it works within the confines of what the story is. I know you probably saw the cover to the first issue, which I always thought looked like some combination of a Conan movie poster, or the National Lampoon's Family Vacation poster, where it's basically a pyramid with Graves ugly mug at the top. Or if you want something more up your alley, it's looks like a cheap 70's road flick. Mean guys! Hot ladies shooting stuff! Fuzzy soft focus painting!
Another part of your argument I like–that it's not good enough that something look better then Ryan Benjamin's work on Batman & The Outsiders, it should look good independently on its own, and there's definitely some merit to that idea. At the same time, there's a limit somewhere in that for me, because it's easy enough to say "Hey, is this pulp noir is good as Rififi?" and then say "of course not", but for christsakes, I don't just want to keep watching Rififi every day anytime I want some pulp noir. Some people might be slow readers or not care, but fuck it: i've read all of Jim Thompson's books, even the terrible ones, and I've read as many EC crime comics as I can find, and you know what? I still want some more pulp noir. I want some more that isn't like something I've seen before, and 100 Bullets fills that gap. Hell, some of the complaints I see leveled at the book–like Johanna Draper Carlson's recent comment about Azzarello's "love of the metaphor tortured beyond its weight to bear."–that's part of what makes the book a fun piece of entertainment. That it does go to these weird dialog extremes, these points where you can't help but say "god, that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense." Although I don't think 100 Bullets (really, anything in Azzarello's catalog) goes a far as his goofy Deathblow series, a comic I'm an unashamed fan of, I think it definitely does more to expand and experiment with that standard "pulp noir" language then anything else I've seen recently. There's plenty of films that take the appearance, and the structure, of pulp noir, but when it comes time to put words in people's mouths, it's either the exactly the same as Double Indemnity or they dump the entire conceit of a false language entirely and everybody talks like–well, like any standard cops and robbers movie. 100 Bullets doesn't. It doesn't sound like Jim Thompson, like Ed Brubaker's Criminal, none of that stuff. That doesn't make it "The Greatest Comic Book Ever Made," it doesn't make it "The Most Mature Tale of Guns and Shit", it just makes it fucking pulp noir, and it makes for pulp noir that isn't exactly the same as the stories it's in love with.
In regards to Risso–you know, I'm not really sure there's anything to be said about that. A lot of people have said "risso gets better" and that the change in coloring makes the book stronger, and that's all true, but really: if you didn't like Risso before, you're not going to like Risso later. You know what though? Thats. Fucking. Great. The idea that we're all supposed to get off on the same comic book art is just–it's fucking tragic and stupid. The idea that we're all even supposed to RESPECT the same comic art is just as bad.
Why is there all this argument on comics critics? Its just a hobby. The entrance requirement is that you have a blog and thats it. Its not an achievement or something worthy of praise.
Noah – Thanks! That makes sense to me.
Being a good critic is an achievement, and one that Noah has long ago reached. Doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of would-be critics (more “reviewers,” really) with blogs, but the discussion of actual criticism is something entirely other than talking about a review on somebody’s blog. Because Noah posts some of his criticism on a blog does not lessen the (obvious) value of his critical thinking.
How many critics does it take to put together a review of a comic?
Come on, Noah…don’t you know?
The simple fact is, I don’t know. And I don’t know because, quite frankly, contemporary mainstream comic art criticism bores me to tears. Show me twelve different comic reviewers, and I’ll show you an indifferent, clumsy, poorly designed wasteland. I don’t know the difference between Berlatsky and Doane because I. Don’t. Care.
But, if I don’t care, doesn’t that disqualify me? How dare I express and opinion? Why did I read the blog? Horror of horrors, and etc.
Hey JMR. Yes, I still think it’s funny when you say it. Thanks for stopping by!
Thanks for the reply, Noah. Your reasons sound good to me. I always think I’ll work on the aesthetics of my criticism, but rarely get past the more utilitarian stuff.
I made the mistake of reading the comment thread in that Beat post. I should know better by know, but I got a few good laughs out of it. If I know who Waid was your “sub-Claremont” comment might be even funnier that it appears.
I’m a fan of 100 Bullets, but I can also understand why there would be a critic who doesn’t like it. Both Risso’s art and Azz’s writing can be love or hate. 100B is a very flawed book; it sometimes misses the mark, but sometimes, it gets the bullseye. (It’s one of three comic books that have made me cry. The other two were written by BKV.)
I have nothing against you disliking 100 Bullets. What I have issue with is your critique itself. And you lose credibility when you mistake Johnson for Risso. They have two different art styles, and there is no debate there.
“Here’s the thing. If you insist that only people who care criticize books, you tend to end up with only positive reviews…”
This is so off the mark that it blows my mind.
If you don’t care for this type of the medium, then you aren’t one who can give a correct critique on it. It would be like me writing a review for a horror movie. I love movies, but I can’t give a shit about the horror genre.
Hey Nick. Your last analogy there is completely false, at least as far as I’m concerned. I’d totally be interested in hearing what you, as a hater of horror films, have to say about horror films. Indeed, I’m truly and already curious. Why don’t you like them? Are there any exceptions? Is it the gore? Something about the pulp tropes? Every era….?
Sometimes it is great to read somebody who knows just everything about a topic — that’s why academic criticism can be fun. But sometimes it’s also nice to get a fresh perspective from somebody who isn’t committed to the genre (like Nina Stone, say.
Derik…you don’t know who Mark Waid is???? And you call yourself a comics critic??? I’m never going to read anything you have to say ever….
Ahem. Mark Waid’s a very popular mainstream writer. He’s kind of got the pompousness of Grant Morrison without the talent. I’ve read a bunch of stuff by him, I think, but none of it exactly sticks in the head. I think he’s pretty much middle-of-the-road for that stuff; quite bad if you’re not grading on a scale.
Oh…and when I say my goals as a critic are aesthetic, that’s a perspective thing, not a qualitative one. Probably I should just say I’m trying to entertain myself, and a couple of other people if I’m lucky.
Tucker, I don’t even know who Rififi is, alas. But maybe I’ll try Deathblow next. You do make it sound appealing.
Waid’s Captain America with artist Ron Garney was pretty awesome as far as corporate superhero comics go, and a recent re-read of the material (in a new Marvel TPB) shows it holds up pretty well, despite starting off sort of Alan Moore’s Swamp Thing-like with a “Loose Ends”-type issue and ending abruptly because, you know, Rob Liefeld had a lot better ideas of what to do with the character.
Noah, you like noir and you’ve never seen Jules Dassin’s Rififi??? Whoa, I’m never reading anything by you again.
I kid. But boy are you in for a treat. It’s only the greatest heist movie of all time, with the heist scene itself a formally brilliant, audacious miniature masterwork that has inspired several decades of filmmakers ever since. You should see it, really, even though it will probably have the unfortunate side effect of making most modern stabs at the genre seem hamfisted by comparison.
“What is wrong with that woman’s neck? Is this supposed to be a Parmigianino tribute or something?”
“Connoiseurship is, of course, the process of showing that you’re an elite by dropping trou and pulling out the uber-knowledge. It’s the James Bond approach to criticism — “yes, this is a ’69 chablis,” or whatever. It’s basically about having a huge reservoir of trivia which you can use to demonstrate that you’re part of an in-group.”
Do you see the contradiction between those two quotes? In the second quote, you criticized your critics for practicing connoisseurship. But in the first quote, you practiced it yourself, except you were drawing from a different reservoir of trivia and marking off a different elite in-group. So apparently you don’t mind using it, but you don’t like having it used against you.
BTW, I haven’t read 100 Bullets, but I like the art of both Risso and Johnson. And having now googled Parmigianino, I think he’s pretty cool too, so thanks for mentioning him, whatever your motivations were.
Hey! Good on you for catching the Parmigianino reference. I don’t think there’s a contradiction though. There’s a difference between making references (however obscure) and denigrating someone else because they don’t share your own random collection of trivia. I mean, sure, to be honest, I thought it was a clever name to drop. But I don’t think less of people who don’t get the reference, and I don’t dismiss their opinion. It’s just what I happened to think of when I saw the picture, and I figured that folks could google it or not as they saw fit.
At least one person thinks my comment at the Beat was a zing against Noah, which either means that person ain’t too bright (not true) or that I’m just not a very good writer (very possibly true).
The problem I saw in the Beat thread is the usual situation where people can’t seem to differentiate between two concepts. Having been an art student (and in fact I am one again, goin’ for my MFA, wish me luck) as well as a longtime lover of art, I make a distinction between critique and criticism. In a critique, one examines a work at hand and determine what works, what doesn’t and why, all in the service of helping the artist and anyone else in the room improve or at least understand things better. Critiques are helpful and good and wholesome things, for the most part.
Criticism, on the other hand (and again, these are my definitions) is a weapon of defense against badness, mediocrity, false equivalencies, shittiness, mendacity, cowardice, neutrality, horribleness, conformity, fakery, and camraderie for its own sake. Criticism is brutally honest and hardly ever has to play fair. The only side it takes is one of rigorous, merciless standards. It celebrates the striving for high art, for excellence, for joy and awe and triumph and all the great and terrible things that make up human existence. And it riles the shit out of people, which is in the end the point.
What’s really going on here, then, is best summed up in a reply post by “snoid” at the Beat thread:
“quoted text: Of course the individual can like or not like such a thing, but are all opinions REALLY equal?”
snoid: “When it comes to art yes.”
Well of course. Because if all opinions are equal then all opinions are harmless. And if all opinions are harmless then no one gets hurt, meaning that I as a shitty artist get to make all the shitty art I want and never be called on it. What’s more, I can believe my shitty art is just as good as that stupid old “great” art everyone likes to yammer on about all the time.
I would bet a Dave Johnson original that “snoid” has at least once in his lifetime exited a movie saying “that sucked” or “that was great” and contemplated why either one was so. This is in fact engaging in criticism; only the most hapless dork would leave a movie they hated thinking of positive ways the producers could improve their work next time. What’s more, comic and sci-fi nerds are perhaps the most vocal, unpaid critics around — just visit any message board, fer chrissakes.
Noah’s error was a boneheaded one, for which I am certain Blogger will dock his pay. But it was an excuse, rather than a reason, to undermine his abilities — and his existence — as a critic.
Hey John. I honestly can’t remember who said what on the Beat thread, alas. Critique vs. criticism makes sense to me; there’s a difference between privately helping someone out and publicly reviewing.
Thanks for stopping by!
“Hey John. I honestly can’t remember who said what on the Beat thread, alas.”
What! You even gave me kudos. Lyin’ faker.
John, snoid here, you have no ideal what I meant by my comments.
Well, do you wanna clue me in, or are you going to leave me at the mercy of simply going by what you posted?
“Well of course. Because if all opinions are equal then all opinions are harmless. And if all opinions are harmless then no one gets hurt, meaning that I as a shitty artist get to make all the shitty art I want and never be called on it. What’s more, I can believe my shitty art is just as good as that stupid old “great” art everyone likes to yammer on about all the time.”
snoid again, this is not what I meant at all. What I meant is your opinions or Noah’s or anyone else’s are no more important then anyone else’s because art is VERY subjective. Some look at Picasso and see genius, others see a mess of paint.
It’s like food, you like what you like. You could write a paper about how great green peppers are and make very good arguments as to why you felt that way, it wouldn’t make me like them and your opinion on green peppers wouldn’t be any more valid them mine.
There is PLENTY of art and comics I think are crap, like 100 bullets for example, but that doesn’t mean they are, TO ME THEY ARE, but that’s it.
Critics rank right above dealers in the comic world to me and dealers are almost all bottom feeding scum IMO. So there you have it. Take it or leave it, you see I don’t care what you think, understand?
snoid,
1) Of course you “care” what I think, and what critics think, else you wouldn’t respond.
2) Green peppers are not the equivalent of art or culture.
3) “There is PLENTY of art and comics I think are crap, like 100 bullets for example, but that doesn’t mean they are, TO ME THEY ARE, but that’s it.” There you go, you just posted something critic-like. That is exactly what Noah or any other writer is saying when they express an opinion; “TO ME THEY ARE but that’s it”. And you are free to, as you put it, take it or leave it.
Understand?
I really don’t get how the defense for your position is being incredibly disengaged from the work… You don’t care enough about the work to engage it (say, learn the names of the artists you’re criticizing), fine, but you also wrote about the work, criticized it, and have spent a few days defending your criticism. It’s sub-mediocre on your part, and maybe your arguments for arguments sake nonsense really is more indicative of time spent on the TCJ boards than not. Criticism requires rigor, Noah.
As for the Johnson cover, it’s fine. It’s clearly homaging the title work of Saul Bass and trash-cinema posters from the late 60s and 70s. The red-white-red (with the logo, which isn’t on the piece you’ve shown but is on the printed book) breaks up the piece and creates visual interest, drawing the eye to the figure. The figure is stiff, sure, but it’s also a powerfully drawn and weighty one. The neck’s a little awkward, but the rest of the proportions are well within the realm of acceptable abstraction, particularly in the context of the other abstracted images within the red squares on the cover.
Further to its credit, and perhaps most relevant, as a serialized monthly comic 100 Bullets most-always ends up on the comics racks next to full-bleed, super-saturated computer coloured books. This design is much more sparse, with big blocks of solid colour and a consciously different visual style which will draw attention on a comic rack–likely what it was intended to do. It’s one of Johnson’s middle-of-the-road covers, but even the current cover of the first trade paperback is both much stronger and more effective, and likely was staring you in the face at the time. Hell, it even featured strong silhouette work, which you referenced in your previous post.
Anyway, you fucked up. Suck it up instead of pulling this message board Ian Harker nonsense, trying to prove that you were right all along.
Hey Chris. I cheerfully admitted I was wrong in identifying the artist. However, knowing that it’s Johnson and not Risso has no bearing on my aesthetic reaction to the cover. The general inability to tell the difference between a factual error and an aesthetic judgment seems to me a much more consequential critical failing than the one you accuse me of. I refuse to believe that “critical rigor” is about being familiar with the work of every crappy mainstream artist who comes down the pike. In other words, I’m disengaged in the sense that I don’t have a lot invested in being a connoisseur of mainstream comics art, not in the sense that I don’t care about art (or my own argument, for that matter.)
And really, what do you want me to say? “Oh my god! The cover is by Dave Johnson! He won an Eisner! Mea Culpa — it’s awesome! And somehow, that makes me like Eduardo Risso’s art more too! Ain’t critical rigor wonderful!”
Speaking of critical rigor…you’re main defense of the cover seems to rest on the contention that (a) it references things which are better and (b) it’s not as bad as lots of things which are worse. Even then, you’re not willing to say it’s good; only that it’s “fine”, which as far as I can tell, appears to mean that you think it’s a passable hack-job. Though you do say it’s “powerfully drawn.” To which I can only reply, my ass it is.
The cover of the trade made no aesthetic impression on me at all…so, yeah, I guess it’s better than the cover in question. Yay for it.
I do know who Ian Harker is…but I honestly don’t spend quite enough time on the TCJ message board to recognize or critique his argumentative style. So you have the advantage of me there. Congrats!
Look, Samuel L Jackson reads 100 Bullets in a music video for the Snakes on a Plane movie. If that doesn’t trump Winsor “looky! the little boy is a-sleeping!” McCay, then nothing does.
“Hey Chris. I cheerfully admitted I was wrong in identifying the artist. However, knowing that it’s Johnson and not Risso has no bearing on my aesthetic reaction to the cover.”
That you couldn’t tell the difference between two different artists working on the book does not, inherently, bear on your aesthetic reaction. It does call into question the worth of that reaction, though.
“In other words, I’m disengaged in the sense that I don’t have a lot invested in being a connoisseur of mainstream comics art, not in the sense that I don’t care about art (or my own argument, for that matter.)”
Again, you’re going to have to do better than that. One need not be a connoiseur to tell the differences between the artists, miss the giant signature on the piece of art, or flip to the credits page. As everyone has been only to keen to point out, you’re welcome to have any sort of opinion you want, but all you’ve done here is prove that your opinion isn’t worth the effort to type. Again, that’s not being a connoiseur, that’s just basic reading comprehension, basic aesthetic differentiation. It’s noticing the name of the artist scrawled across the image.
As for your characterization of my defence of the cover, that’s pretty close. Like I said, it’s a middle-of-the-road cover for Johnson, but it’s certainly not as bad as you make it out to be. It has a style, more than a little thought has been put into the layout and effect of the work, and it’s head and shoulders above most of its contemporaries. You’re so keen to toss around phrases like “hack work” but it pretty clearly doesn’t apply here… Genuine effort at least seems to have been put in, and while it isn’t entirely successful I don’t believe anyone involved hacked out either the cover or interior pages, and neither Johnson or Risso could be described as “mainstream hacks” by anyone actually familiar with more than a few instances of their work.
– Chris
Wow! I stumbled on this blog by pure chance (and a little late). But I just wanted to say a couple of things. Words like "dumb" and "hack work" fill my heart with joy. Thanks buddy. So you hated the cover. Good for you. You're right, her neck is a little long. It was painted before I started using Photoshop which would have been an easy fix. Hey, I'm only human and I am far from as good of an artist as I want to be before I die. Trying new things all the time that sometimes don't work out instead of sticking to the same style/formula over and over again. This means I'm gonna fail from time to time. I'm sure you feel that I fail 100%. That's your opinion and I guess there's nothing to done about that, nor would I really try to do so.
Maybe I am "over rated". But that's not because I'm out there telling the world how great I am. If anything, it's the opposite. But that said, I make a good living, that has allowed me to travel the world, meet a lot of great people along the way, doing something that I love. So rip into my art all you want. I'll certainly miss whatever royalty percentage I get off the $2.99 cover price from you avoiding buying anything with my horrible artwork on it.
Keep drinking that hater-aid.
Hey Dave. I'm happy you make a good living; I certainly don't wish joblessness on anyone, especially in this economy. Take care.
I agree with just about everything in this post except your critique of the cover. But, to me, that doesn't matter. I believe that all art is subjective.
Personally, I appreciate caricature in comics. I don't want to see a series of static portraits in perfect proportion. Hal Foster's work was always in perfect proportion and it bored the shit out of me. But many see him as a god amongst cartoonists.
Nothing anyone can tell me about how to appreciate Hal Foster (perfect proportion, brilliant composition etc), even though I can acknowledge the validity of their opinions, will suddenly make me excited about it. That doesn't make them wrong. Doesn't make me wrong. They like it. I don't.
I like the girl's proportions on the cover. The thick neck and legs are representational of not only a certain type of personality but also the artist's own feelings of those types. I get the feeling that this is a hard woman. The choice of red is an obvious choice for an instant murderous impression from the veiwer and the black and white images within give a feeling of noir.
All you need to be a comics critic is a set of eyeballs and an opinion. And each of those opinions are valid. To me arguing about who's opinion on art is the best is like trying to argue that blue is better than red for a favorite color.
When everybody knows that red blows the shit out of blue.
You're opinion is only as important as anyone reading it chooses to let it be. Personally, you lost me with your indifference and ignorance of the artists you critique. You write and sound like a self important and self impressed douchebag. Go fuck yourself you stupid prick!
Don, I like caricature. I just don't think that's what Johnson is going for here…or if it is, that it's well done in this particular instance. I appreciate your effort to defend the cover though.
Anon, your response is so generic that it's not clear to me that you're actually a person. But that's okay; even vapid part-troll-part-drooling-fanboy-golems get to say their piece on the internets.
By the by, where are all you folks coming from? It looks like a deviantart page, but the link won't go through. If somebody could give me the page so I could fully appreciate whatever nasty thing somebody is saying about me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Oh that was me Noah. I couldn't help but share with some friends, your incredible insight into the world of comic art. Here's the link…
http://www.devilpig.deviantart.com/journal/26905712/
Oh, and for balance. I also acknowledged some of your fine art in this post.
http://devilpig.deviantart.com/journal/26913848/
Once again, thanks for the entertainment.
Hey Dave. Thank you kindly for the info. Take care.
By the by, the largest collection of my art is here. I have a couple of pictures in the new abstract comics anthology out from fantagraphics; one of those is here.
I'm kind of curious; do you like any abstract art? Or do you just assume it's all crap? That latter seems to be more or less the case from your comments, but perhaps I'm just misreading.
so that cover isnt dave's best. it happens. its not horrible, and i think your dislike for it is quite exaggerated …
when it comes to critique, getting emotional and using the words you do, it seems more like you're jealous and on your boy-period than sharing an opinion on something. rattle on and on whenever you want to, its your right, but come on. at least know what you're talking about and who it is.
why are you so desperate for people to agree about the cover? is this like.. the only cover you've seen? dave johnson has done some fantastic work, he really has a lot of talent. it's laughable to see him getting dogged.
just stir the flames like you haters do…
Honestly, abstract art isn't my thing. But at the same time I can tell the difference between artists with skill and talent who know how to draw but have come to conclusion of Abstract style like Picasso and Richard Powers ( a personal favorite) and artists like yourself. To be honest, most, if not all of your stuff I've seen so far looks like the work of someone sitting in boring business meeting with a blank sheet of paper and a ball point pen. Is it art? Sure, I guess. But I would put it the category of doodles as opposed to art. But I also feel that most of the art in Modern Art in galleries if, reduced down to 8"x11" in size would feel the same way to me. Maybe you should move up to giant sized canvases. Added some paint splashes. Then, maybe I could look at it and say "well at least he put some effort into it".
I'm certainly not a "expert" art critic like yourself. And I definitely do not hold the opinion that my work is without fault. Honestly, I'm just a guy who started out liking comic art as a kid, got a job drawing comic art and along the way have been influenced by many artists and designers outside the comic art field. And have been letting that influence change my art along the way in many different directions. Maybe you have a problem with that. You mentioned Toth before. But if you look at his early work, he changed a lot over the years.
And here's another difference between us. I did manage to find everything I could that you've drawn that was online. And then came to my opinion. It was easy. As a matter of fact, when looking at your Eaten by… blog. I could tell the difference between your art and your friends.
Is it my opinion that you should stop drawing? Hell, no. If it brings you pleasure, I say draw away. Bottom line is that you critique comics and I make a living drawing them, but most of the world couldn't give a shit about it because it's basically a throw away industry. It always has been. But that's what makes it fun. I certainly don't take myself seriously. When I fuck up on a cover I know that I get another chance in a month to do better. And when I read something like what you wrote, complaining about something I did 10 years ago, it really does make me laugh. And that's why I had to share it with all my friends.
Hopefully someday, somehow, I'll do something worthy of you giving me at least a passing grade. Hey, it could happen. I change my stuff all the time to keep fresh. And I'm always trying to get better. Thanks for giving me a new goal in life.
If you read a critique on Picasso and it was really a Monet, would you take it seriously? Nah … I'm just amazed how much people seem to care about some blowhard's opinion. So he doesn't like it. So what. So he can't figure out who is drawing what. He's an idiot … and that's my critique of your critique.
As for the cover, do I like it? It's fine, not DAVE JOHNSON's best stuff but the feeling the cover gives is sexy, mysterious, pulp-ish … in short, it's a 100 Bullets cover and when I see it that's what I think, "100 Bullets." I don't even need the title to now what I'm picking up. That's pretty good if you ask me. Now how many covers can you take the title off of and still know what the book is? Not many.
Dave, I don't make any particular claims for myself as an artist. I could protest and argue that my work is good and you're a jerk for not liking it and so forth…but, in the first place, I don't think that disliking a work of art for whatever reason makes one stupid, and, secondly, I think that carrying on like that when you've been critiqued actually tends to make you look like a needy douchebag. So I'll just say thanks for looking at the work and for thinking about it, however briefly.
Also, I should say…I really was critiquing the one cover. It's perfectly possible that you've done work I'd like in other venues. If I see some of it, and I like it, I'll say so. Not that you will be reading or even care, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that I have some sort of grudge or stake in disliking your work. That's not the case.
Anonymous 1: "If you read a critique on Picasso and it was really a Monet, would you take it seriously."
It would depend on what was said. I don't think you need to know names of artists to have interesting things to say about them. Sometimes criticism from someone who isn't part of the scene is actually pretty interesting. To me, at least, someone coming from a place where Picasso and Monet looked more alike than different would be interesting in itself.
Anonymous 2: "when it comes to critique, getting emotional and using the words you do, it seems more like you're jealous and on your boy-period than sharing an opinion on something."
Sorry. Next time I'll work in "boy-period" to show that I'm, like, calm and thoughtful and "sharing."
Really, what are you — the first and only school marm with a potty mouth? Figure out whether you want to be a morally superior prick or a gutter-dwelling prick, and then come back and play again, okay?
So when did I ever say you were stupid for not liking my work? All I said was the way you went about it made you look like an asshat. And to criticize me for calling that into question is once again laughable. You hated the way I drew the neck on the girl. I responded by agreeing with you. I didn't agree with the rest of what you said about the over all design. But that's OK. Maybe I should just stick to drawing covers "the Marvel Way".
And another thing. You asked what I thought of your work. So when I give you my opinion you respond this way "I don't make any particular claims for myself as an artist". Well aren't you clever. Is that gonna be your response to every challenge? Hey guess what? I don't make any claims to an artist either. It's just what I do for a living. I do it because I can't play music or stand sitting in office meetings all day crunching numbers. But that doesn't mean I won't stand up for myself when someone goes outta their way to be mean or spiteful in their attempt to me funny.
Enjoy the attention. We both know it's what you crave. Not that I'm above that either. Otherwise I'd never show my art to anyone.
And I know, someday I will make you proud buddy. I can feel it.
Your pal forever.
Dave "Needy douchebag" Johnson
Dave, I make lots of claims for myself as a writer, have no fear — and if you care to pick apart my prose, I will cheerfully ridicule and belittle you. My art is really just a now-and-again hobby, though. I was curious what you thought, but I don't see any particular reason to defend it to you.
And on a related note: you're not standing up for yourself. You're throwing a tantrum. Some random little blogger disliked your cover eight months ago, and you freak out. Then you claim you're being all cool and nonchalant. No…you're freaking out. Your feelings got hurt, and you're running to your fanbase to reassure you that you're wonderful.
That's fine. It was a harsh review, and criticism is hard to take from anybody. Better artists than you (or than me for that matter) have handled such things less graciously. In any case, I do appreciate the traffic — and I even rather shamefully enjoy trolling drive-by anons. and comics glitterati. So certainly no harm done on my end. Good luck in your endeavors.
it seems more like you're jealous and on your boy-period
man, all we were missing in this fanboy flamefest was some misogyny. i feel better now.
Hahaha you kill me Noah. Once again, totally missing the mark. But I guess it goes well with what I've now learned about you.
Still a big fan, and your friend,
Dave
Oh sure, Miriam. Just come waltzing back onto the blog and take the best lines.
Dave…your pose of indifference would work better sans the leaden irony. As it is, it sounds (to shamelessly crip from R. Fiore) like you're somebody who is trying to be clever, but is actually just angry. And not clever.
Though I do have to say…I don't feel I've learned anything in particular about you, except that, like most of us, you're kind of a dick when you're pissed off. I don't really see the point in pretending I'm either your fan or your friend, but I don't wish you ill. Take care.
Oh Noah, you're misreading me. Why can't we be friends? What can I do to turn your frown upside down? Maybe I could do a Ben 10 drawing for your kid?
Well, I hope you have a great night indeed.
Your friend, and I mean that,
Dave
Noah, I see what you mean about the neck but I can't get behind you on the rest of the cover, I think the cover looks great. As for you're so called "critique" it's pretty brutal, I understand that you don't like it, cool, but I would suggest being a little more careful on how you word a critique and at least know who it is you are critiquing before you tare apart their work
Hey Dave. My son loves Ben 10, actually. He's not especially interested in original drawings though, since he's only 5…I mean, I'm sure he'd like it, but he'd probably like a DVD or a comic more, since there's a story. But I appreciate the offer…and jeez, how much of this blog are you reading that you know I have a son, anyway?
In any case, I never smile. It's a critic thing.
"I would suggest being a little more careful on how you word a critique and at least know who it is you are critiquing before you tare apart their work"
I understand this is a common sentiment…but it's still not clear to me why I need to find out anything about an artist at all to express my dislike of a single image. But reasonable people can disagree on that sort of thing I suppose.
The problem with your blog, is that you would love to be called a critic, but a critic HAS to have knowledge on the subject he writes about. You just give an opinion. Throwing snark at the readers just makes you an opinionated ass, but not a critic.
The cover is actually pretty good and most of his covers have hidden hints at what happens inside.
The problem with your comment is that you would love to be called a commenter, but you actually seem to be some sort of impossibly pretentious homunculus, spouting dead languages and self-parodic douchebaggery in almost random spurts. I don't believe you can pass the Turing Test, sir.
I mean, I'm supposed to believe a real person praised Johnson's work because "most of his covers have hidden hints at what happens inside"? He's a good artist because his covers are similar to some sort of activity book for the kiddies? You're putting me on, surely. Away with you, vile apparition! Forsooth!
You amaze me with your power of snark. I'm blind now.
You're not a critic, face it.
I refuse to admit anything to an anonymous, blind, Internet gnome who missed the end of the Roman Empire.
I do appreciate your willingness to come back for more though. All the other non-people have just driven-by and then disappeared into the ether that spawned them.
Another of these drips.
The more times I have to look at that cover, the more amazed I am anyone could have an opinion about it. It just seems bland, except for the messed-up neck.
You may have insulted Mark Waid (twice), but it wasn't to his face.