Hot Topic: Styles of Comic Artwork

[penciljack]

If you had to chose one, which is your favorite style of comic artwork?:pj:

[NickRocks]

first.

I choose "dynamic"

EDIT: oh wait this isn't an article XD.

But yeah, I like dynamic styles....regardless of the "style", be it manga, western, cartoony, I like artists whose panels are badass and convey motion and action with zeal and burst.

some artists i like that i feel fit this category:
Joe MAD
Eiichiro Oda
Kubo Tite
John Romita Jr
Erik Larson

theres more but im feelin lazy

[Morganza]

What's Hyper-Realism? Is that like Neal Adams or Brian Bolland? If so then that's for me.

[Orphangrinder]

I voted "cartoony and super simplified", because, while it's not quite there, it's probably the closest to what I think is the ideal style for comics. Ideally, I could've voted for "stylized in a way that suits the subject matter, and simplified to a degree that is appealing and flexible, and allows for direction of the reader's attention based on level of detail without looking artificial."

However, really, "golden age", "manga" and "cartoony" can all pretty much be folded into the same thing. "Hyper-realistic" is the only one that's fundamentally different. (And wrong -- I said it!)

[necenarro]

Cartoony and super-simplified-- I'm a big fan of Mike Oeming, Phil Hester, Bruce Timm, Genndy Tartakovsky (I know not comics), and others like them. It's also the style I fit in. I use to really hate calling my style this, but I've come to embrace it.

[jdmakescomics]

Hm. Fairly realistic proportions and anatomy with simplified or stylized rendering. Impressionistic to a degree... the economy of line of a cartoonier artist with the figures of a more classical artist.

...That is really specific, isn't it?

[hadesillustrations]

Silver age is not an option on your list. I like Buscema, Byrne, Colan, etc. I don't really consider them golden age, nor hyper-realistic either. Something in between.

[jdmakescomics]

Yeah, that's a good point. I'd probably land in silver age if I had to pick. I figured "old school" included em, but it depends on who on this forum you want to call old. Har.

[NickRocks]

welp, guess im voting manga manga manga DESU DESU DESU

[Bruce Lee]

I like all kinds of stuff to be honest, whether it's realistic, "classic" or cartooning and animated styles. Anyone who's spent any time with me or around me knows this. I certainly lean towards "Silver Age", like Alex. Since I grew up reading Silver and Bronze Age books, that's not too surprising. The short list: Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Wally Wood, John Buscema, Berni Wrightson, Alex Toth, Neal Adams, Don Newton, Doug Wildey, Gene Colan, Joe Kubert , Al Williamson, Dave Stevens, Bruce Timm, Darwyn Cooke, Gil Kane, John Romita, John Romita Jr, Mike Mignola, Guy Davis, Walt Simonson, Herge, Hayao Miyazaki, Kenichi Sonoda, Leiji Matsumoto, Alex Raymond, Hal Foster, Roy G. Krenkel, Will Elder, Graham Ingles, Jack Davis, Mark Schultz, Frank Frazetta, Milton Caniff, Mobius, Jose Gonzales, Mike Zeck, Lou Fine, Tex Avery, Dean Yeagle, Bret Blevins, Winsor McCay, Steve Rude, Andrew Loomis, Franklin Booth, Charles Vess, Michael Kalutta, Carl Barks, Dan DeCarlo, Ernie Colon, Alfredo Alcala, Ryan Sooke, Arthur Adams, Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez, Adam Hughes, John Byrne, and a few really good PJ artists who I won't embarrass here. ;)

[Orphangrinder]

That's the short list?

[penciljack]

Just a quick note .... the lack of options was a deliberate method to spark conversation ...

Carry on!

[Juggertha]

I wish there were example pictures

[celes]

I've always had an affinity towards manga (Captain Obvious saves the day again), though really, I'll go for anything that isn't too realistic. If it looks traced or too heavily referenced, I'll pass. I guess it's a little strange, but I'd have more fun reading a comic drawn in stick figures than I would a comic with incredible photo-realistic artwork.

[ScottEwen]

I'm somewhere between old-school and cartoony. Artists like Mike Allred and Darwyn Cooke do it for me.

[Spidey]

I'd say firstly, I love "modern stylized" artists like Khary Randolph, Jason Pearson, Stuart Immonen, David LaFuente, LeSean Thomas etc. Where the art is very dynamic and open(lines) and has some animated sensibilities.

Second, I'd go for a pulpy European style art like Juanjo Guarindo, Francesco Francavilla, Ramon K. Perez, Cameron Stewart, etc. Where the art has a lot of brush strokes, heavy blacks and unruled lines.


I'm mostly against hyper-realistic stuff like Tim Bradstreet, Brian Bolland, and Alex Ross.

[Orphangrinder]

Just a quick note .... the lack of options was a deliberate method to spark conversation ...
Well, it's certainly sparking conversation!

Like, for instance, the fact that "manga" being one category lumps this:
http://i.imgur.com/hhSQX.jpg
...in with this:
http://i.imgur.com/zX8wF.jpg

[Bruce Lee]

That's the short list?

It absolutely is my short list. There are hundreds of fantastic artists working in comics whose work I like. I never mentioned Brian Bolland, or Frank R. Paul, or Ryan Ottley or, or Amano, or countless others. Those were simply a few of my favorites from 35 years reading comics. The main list would be pretty frikkin' large!

A shorter list would be: Wally Wood, John Buscema, Mark Schultz, Don Newton, Jack Kirby, Bruce Timm, Berni Wrightson, Dave Stevens, Steve Rude, Doug Wildey, Alex Toth and Darwyn Cooke.

Shorter still: Wally Wood

http://www.lostonwallace.com/weirdscience16.JPG

[Huerta]

I like styles with ENERGY. I want motion, exaggeration and taking realism to another level. Anyone can copy, but those artists who can twist and interpret reality and show you something different. That is where it's all at.

[dfbovey]

I gravitate to more detailed styles. Doesn't have to be realistic, but I've always been attracted to art that I notice something new everytime I look at it.

Artists that have that along with what Huerta described are always at the top of my list. Motion, detail, artists that are masters at guiding their viewer's eyes through a piece.

[50%grey]

Is Michael Golden a genre of art???? cause that dude has inspired all my favorite artists lol

[JesterretseJ]

In between hyper-realistic and cartoony for me.
An ideal art style for me that I would like to see from an artist and hopefully something that I will be able to achieve someday, a cross between Glen Keane and Travis Charest :)

I apologize for my English
Nestor

Im New here :) here is a link to my DA
>>> http://jesterretsej.deviantart.com/

[Jel]

I like good art, pretty much. Which displays skill, emotion, energy and originality.
That said, I usually lean towards comic art which contains a certain amount of detail, whether the figures are simplified or not.
Which goes from Dave Cooper to Bisley, from Peter de Sève to Akira Toriyama, with hundreds in between.

[F!]

I don't favor styles. I favor craft.

[50%grey]

I don't favor styles. I favor craft.

Yeah, I don't understand that unless it's some kind of inside joke. You would think it would be the opposite

Style is everything that makes an artist who they are, all there flaws,and all there experiences/emotions. It's what sets them apart from everyone else.

Craft is more skilled work that is passed down through the generations with very little deviation from the original, and pertains more to guilds of people doing basically the same thing.

To me that is boring imho...

Maybe you are saying you like very skilled artists, but honestly a skilled artists is one that can break the rules not one that adheres to ones he didn't create himself. And that is style..

Just my 2 cents

[fatmancomics]

I've always been a sucker for more cartoony styles but I wouldn't call them over simplified. Super stylized maybe but never over simplified. Here's my short list in chronological order that I discovered them:
Mike Zeck
John Byrne
Mark Silvestri
Jim Lee
Larry Stroman
Todd McFarlane
Greg Capullo


Nowadays though, I have way more of a mixed taste. If I like the art, I may just pick it up but it will be the story that keeps me buying it unless I REALLY like the art. Blacksad is a good example of books I've bought simply for the art since the stories weren't all that great (the second one was the best but even that one was pretty weak). Sometimes you have a big missmatch where the art will suck but the story is awesome or vice versa and I just have to have it for one or the other.

[basil81]

I like a good story first and foremost. As much as I appreciate the art, the story is what keeps me coming back. I don't have a 'favorite' style of art, as long as it's drawn well and services the story.

[Dann]

Gotta chime in....
Voted Old school/golden age, but, like Loston, I lean towards guys like Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, John and Sal Buscema, Nestor Redondo, Jim Aparo, Alfredo Alcala, Gene Colon, JL Garcia Lopez, Dick Giordano, Irv Novick, Don Heck, Dick Dillin, Walt Simonson....

[CoreyPledger]

Golden Age for sure. Not that I don't like the others, and I tend to draw more cartoony stuff but I love the old comics. I periodically read through the Crawford Encyclopedia of Comic Books just to read about old artists and comics.

[Inkspot]

Any art that can effectively tell a story is art I gravitate towards, but give me a book by Dustin Nguyen, Paul Grist, or Humberto Ramos over something by Bryan Hitch any day.

That's not to say that I don't like realistic work. Frank Quitely's We3 pages are beautiful and sad and all kinds of other conflicting emotions, but for every Lenil Yu or Jim Cheung who consistently hit those high notes, you have a Greg Land photocopying his older work to rush-job some X-Men book that won't matter next month or Steve Dillon scrapping together some of the most boring, static, and mis-proportioned superhero "action" over in Ultimate Avengers. I'm sure it took days and days and days to make sure he drew every whisker on Frank Castle's face, but I just don't care.

One of the biggest problems right now, as I see it, is people focusing on that kind of thing, and failing to get across the fact that they work in comics and that they should be fun. Not all comics, mind you. Spiegelman and Satrapi did amazing work in Maus and Persepolis using "cartoon-ish" art to tell dramatically grounded stories, but there was still a sense of joy in their art. You could tell they were doing it because they wanted to, not because they knew that it might get them a paycheck drawing Captain America somewhere down the road. Expressive characters and well-portrayed action make for better comics than making sure every ledge of every window in the background is perfectly rendered. I don't read comics for window ledges.

Also, Loston, that Weird Science cover looks a heck of a lot like the work Mike Ploog did on J.M. DeMatteis' Stardust Kid, which kinda makes sense considering he and Wood were friends. That debut Werewolf By Night run and the handful of Ghost Rider's first appearances Ploog illustrated are legendary.

[autowagon]

Just a quick note .... the lack of options was a deliberate method to spark conversation ...

Carry on!


I like a good story first and foremost. As much as I appreciate the art, the story is what keeps me coming back. I don't have a 'favorite' style of art, as long as it's drawn well and services the story.

yup, when you say hyper realistic, i just think illustrative. When i think of that for me that is the 70's Filipino invasion. I digress, the stuff that i feel is of the highest quality is both illustrative and cartoony at the same time in order to serve the story telling. That almost seems prerequisite to greatness in comics art. It's the next step to me. Will Eisner, Alex Toth, Illustrative (Realistic) or cartoony? It is about making every tool of the medium meld together in a natural way. The best guys show us how to do this. Making it look easy. Acting, movement, pacing, anatomy, everything is included in the way they do things.

So i guess my criteria includes all but Manga manga manga, and i don't have anything against that either.

[Orphangrinder]

Expressive characters and well-portrayed action make for better comics than making sure every ledge of every window in the background is perfectly rendered. I don't read comics for window ledges.I think that might be going in my sig.

[Huerta]

Any art that can effectively tell a story is art I gravitate towards, but give me a book by Dustin Nguyen, Paul Grist, or Humberto Ramos over something by Bryan Hitch any day.

That's not to say that I don't like realistic work. Frank Quitely's We3 pages are beautiful and sad and all kinds of other conflicting emotions, but for every Lenil Yu or Jim Cheung who consistently hit those high notes, you have a Greg Land photocopying his older work to rush-job some X-Men book that won't matter next month or Steve Dillon scrapping together some of the most boring, static, and mis-proportioned superhero "action" over in Ultimate Avengers. I'm sure it took days and days and days to make sure he drew every whisker on Frank Castle's face, but I just don't care.

One of the biggest problems right now, as I see it, is people focusing on that kind of thing, and failing to get across the fact that they work in comics and that they should be fun. Not all comics, mind you. Spiegelman and Satrapi did amazing work in Maus and Persepolis using "cartoon-ish" art to tell dramatically grounded stories, but there was still a sense of joy in their art. You could tell they were doing it because they wanted to, not because they knew that it might get them a paycheck drawing Captain America somewhere down the road. Expressive characters and well-portrayed action make for better comics than making sure every ledge of every window in the background is perfectly rendered. I don't read comics for window ledges.

Also, Loston, that Weird Science cover looks a heck of a lot like the work Mike Ploog did on J.M. DeMatteis' Stardust Kid, which kinda makes sense considering he and Wood were friends. That debut Werewolf By Night run and the handful of Ghost Rider's first appearances Ploog illustrated are legendary.

I agree.

The problem is, artists, writers and editors these days are treating their comics like story-boards/movies. For the past 8-10 years tracing, photoshopping and drawing realistically has been the trend and a dumb one at that, too. It's also when the term "graphic novel" become more mainstream to make comics seem even more mature. I don't get the appeal and need for realism in comics, it works perfect for stories like MARVELS and The Ultimates, but not everything. It's one thing to update something and keep it modern, but there's no real reason to ground everything in our exact reality.

The japanese should take over Marvel and DC comics, while Marvel and DC can focus on movies.

[50%grey]

I wish Marvel and DC would get out of the mindset that the creators are nothing, and the characters are king.

They should support there communities ,and give back more. All other major brands do tons of this, but comics is like a locked door.

Heres what I predict happening, Hollywood has the attention span of a 5 year old with ADHD. So in a couple of years they will be done with the comic book thing ,and on to some new fad.

So Marvel/DC prepare yourself for the downswing.

Do what the Japaenese do, and hold contests for new creators, then publish them.

Go back to the mailed portfolio reviews, and just help the artist community grow. It helps them in the long run because most of those people will be buying tons of your stuff for years.

[NickRocks]

I wish Marvel and DC would get out of the mindset that the creators are nothing, and the characters are king.

i wish the fans would get out of that mindset as well. im hoping also one day that actual comic artists take comics back from the illustrators (sorry marko)

[Deth]

truth is that "mindset" isnt something new. Its been happening for the last 25 years now maybe even longer. (I've only been reading comics for about 25 years). problem is anyone who has a slight interest in the business of comics are inspired by the people that help to create it as opposed to the characters themselves. Its a natural thing. We are the ones doing this. its as simple as that.
Do you think the average american knows who the hell Jim Lee is? or Leinel Francis Yu? they dont know and they dont care. But us, we're the ones who look at a great drawing of a character and think to ourselves "so and so drew that drawing." I know I do it.
I dont just look at a drawing and think thats a great drawing of Thor.
I know who drew it. Hell as artists we can look at dozens of different drawings and tell who did them in less than 5 seconds.
dont kid yourselves we are part of the problem as well.
In Pro Wrestling we're what is known as smart marks.

[supersalt32]

I wish there was more choices... haha

[Orphangrinder]

Can you see who voted for what in this poll?

[astrocity20]

I don't really have a preference any which way. It kind of depends on the story and subject matter imo.

[smygba]

Image / 90s / Jim Lee Style [/was not an option but I made it so].

Its how I think a superhero comic should look. Otherwise, I like cartoons for everything else.

[penciljack]

Hey, YOU can't just add new options!

[Orphangrinder]

Image / 90s / Jim Lee Style [/was not an option but I made it so].
Its how I think a superhero comic should look. Otherwise, I like cartoons for everything else.I contend that Image/90s/Jim Lee style is cartoony. Not in the cutesy, big-eye disney/manga sense, but those are some seriously stylized, abstracted figures. No human on earth ever looked anything like that.

[amadarwin]

I like styles with ENERGY. I want motion, exaggeration and taking realism to another level. Anyone can copy, but those artists who can twist and interpret reality and show you something different. That is where it's all at.

This is mine as well. Energy sells it for me.

[Ed]

I hope this adds to the conversation, and doesn't divert it, but I can be impressed by almos any style; what most sways me in comics is striking linear compositions and sophisticatedly orchestrated contrasts. Monotony is always the the killer in comics for me unless it's done consciously, with a specific effect in mind. By contrasts I don't mean of value necessarily.

[Matt001]

Honesty. Whatever you draw, make it honest. I want truth. Your truth.

[Orphangrinder]

Honesty. Whatever you draw, make it honest. I want truth. Your truth.Would you mind saying a bit more about this?

[Jcatlett76]

I chose Hyper Realism but I don't really mean the new digital age of manipulation. What I meant was I like artists who produce realistic comic art as in correct anatomy and structures. I grew up with the the likes of John Byrne, Jim Aparo, George Perez, Curt Swan, Irv Novick, John Romita Sr, John Buscema, Alex Saviuk, Sal Buscema, Bob Layton, Neal Adams, Mike Zeck....These were just some of the artists that I admired growing up in the eighties. They always stood out to me because they could tell a story but keep it real at the same time. Now, while I loved these artists because of their realistic approach, I did have an affinity toward "some" of the Stylized artists. Todd McFarlane comes to mind. While a lot of people don't like him these days, the one thing I remember about him was he got the basics right and then made the drawing fun for the reader. If you look beyond the crazy poses or exaggerations...the man could draw. However, he wasn't my favorite stylized artist. That honor goes to Norm Breyfogle. He has to be the most underrated artist ever. He had just the right mix of realism and style. There are a few modern artists I really enjoy because they take it back to basics and do a heck of a job. There are some though that are a tad too basic and some that try too hard for realism. And some just try to be too stylish. Just puts me off reading a good story.

[JBFletcher]

Would you say that each script has one ideal art style, and that's the only style that could match the core of that story with any real precision?

Take Bone for example. Could you tell that story in any other style and have it feel as...*right*?

[kirpid]

what wave would you call Bill Seinkiewicz (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS281US281&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qvD2TenaEI24sAP--cjJBw&ved=0CDkQvwUoAQ&q=bill+sienkiewicz&spell=1&biw=1259&bih=563), Frank Miller, Bernie Wrightson (http://www.google.com/search?q=bernie+wrightson&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS281US281&prmd=ivnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9O_2TeTpBo_msQOJlJnVBw&ved=0CD8QsAQ&biw=1276&bih=563), George Pratt (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS281US281&biw=1259&bih=563&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=george+pratt&oq=george+pratt&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=51376l57438l0l12l12l0l4l4l0l341l1913l0.3.3. 2), Etc. I know it sort of lasted from the late 70's to the late 80's. I guess they were Baby Boomer's. It was post Kirby and pre Jim Lee.

[Orphangrinder]

Would you say that each script has one ideal art style, and that's the only style that could match the core of that story with any real precision?

Take Bone for example. Could you tell that story in any other style and have it feel as...*right*?I think a story certainly needs a style that matches its tone, but I don't think that means it has to be one specific style. People usually think of dark, intense stories as needing a more realistic style, but the right kind of cartoony style (think Peter Chung, perhaps) could work just as well. I could imagine any number of cartoonists doing justice to a story like Bone, even in a totally different "surface" style, as long as they had the right level of fun, humorous, kid-friendly cartooning.

I think it is an interesting question, why certain styles seem to be appropriate to certain stories, and others aren't. Why do action/adventure comics tend to be drawn fairly realistically, while both off-the-wall children's comics, and very mundane, slice-of-life indie comics tend toward highly stylized, cartoony artwork? Why couldn't Charles Schultz draw Batman? Why couldn't Jim Lee draw Blankets? (Of course, they could, and it could even work, but probably only in a way that's playing off the incongruity between the subject matter and the style.)

[necrogal]

hmm hard to say, it depends on the comic most comics look good in an manga style while other would look good with a bendable style dramatic or so on.. Depends on comic.

[Jared Lee]

I prefer the style that I first glanced at and said to myself; this is comics.
That was Jim Lees work in X-men. The number one selling comic of ever at one time.

I like other artist, but to me Jim Lee style is the definitive comic style.

That doesn't seem to be an option.

[Popninja]

However, he wasn't my favorite stylized artist. That honor goes to Norm Breyfogle. He has to be the most underrated artist ever. He had just the right mix of realism and style. There are a few modern artists I really enjoy because they take it back to basics and do a heck of a job. There are some though that are a tad too basic and some that try too hard for realism. And some just try to be too stylish. Just puts me off reading a good story.

Breyfogle was one of a few guys that actually turned me off of DC in general. Just did not like his style at all. At all. He and Kelley Jones pretty much ran me off of Batman and/or Detective Comics.

[Jcatlett76]

Breyfogle was one of a few guys that actually turned me off of DC in general. Just did not like his style at all. At all. He and Kelley Jones pretty much ran me off of Batman and/or Detective Comics.

I still stand by my Breyfogle admiration but I am right there with you on Jones. He was an example of over stylized. Man...those bat ears were just insanely silly lol. I've seen Jones on other stuff and it wasn't so bad at all. I think it's the style he chose for Batman that turned me off.

[CrazyDiamond]

All I know is I don't like the stuff that the put in comics today. Too slick. Feels like no feeling or atmosphere there. I'm talking about mainstream comics mind you. Still a lot of fresh young artists out there.

[sadman2000]

Semi-Realistic. Artists Leinil Yu, Phillip Tan, Neal Adams and Greg Capullo and many others have art that for me, is a joy to look at.

[Terminator X]

I chose cartoony, but that's just out of those categories. I like all types of art and comic art, but my absolute favorite is stuff kinda like Paul Pope does. That doesn't really fit into any of the categories above, I'd say.

[shannonh]

"Early 90's comic greats" is not an option so I will NOT vote.

[Emperorsteele]

Well Shannoh, it's hard to describe "90's style" because there was a lot going on. A lot of artists followed in Jim Lee's footsteps, some rather unconvincingly if not unsuccessfully (Glares over at Rob Leifeld). Eastern works were starting to influence American comic artists. Some artists, in an attempt to distance themselves from looking like a Jim Lee clone, started making their works more cartoony or simplified.

I guess if there was a "staple" that describes 90's comics art, it's random cross hatching. And that would be a by-product of trying to render things realistically or believably... whether the artists realized this or not. Some did it just because It's what Jim Lee did and it looked cool >_>

[Matt001]

Can I vote for me? Yeah. It's me.

[Matt001]

Write whatever you want. Draw whatever you want. Viva revolution.

[Matt001]

Write whatever you want. Draw whatever you want. Viva revolution.

[Huerta]

Lesean Thomas asked this question on his Journal over on DA, "REALISM vs. CARTOONY?!?"

This is what I said on it,

HUERTA -"I think the photo-realism art trend is one of the reasons why comics are dying. And it is sad that mainstream comics don't realize that and is doing NOTHING, to appeal to anything beyond white boys 23-35 yrs old.

I know it would help readership greatly, if mainstream comics had artists like Chamba, Bill, Lesean Thomas, Ottley, Cheeks, Kizer, Anka, etc...

This shit is comic books, not an academic art study on what if Leonardo De Vinci painted Avengers. Get the hell outta here with that."

And this is Lesean's reply to mine

LESEAN -"I have to say, I miss the days when comic books got me excited. back in the 90s, you had the big, expressionist boom: Larry Stroman, Authur Adams, Liefeld, Lee, McFarlane, joe Mad, Ramos, Turner, Sylvestri, Campbell....these guys brought an excitement and flair to comics that inspired legions of young audiences and aspiring comic guys like myself, because they created art that was expressive, unique, exciting and dynamic in approach and voice. now, everyone seams to be trying to draw feature films with photorealistic face just to land a film deal.

It's part of why i stopped reading mainstream comics altogether. i thought back to why i read comics much more as a young tike compared to now. and it's boiled down to the artists. Some of my favorite artists to watch are online, NOT drawing the big books : Cheeks, Chamba, rey, Kizer, Bengal, Joel23, Kweli, Khary,( he's working, but imagine him on an x-book run? or a spidey run? ), to name a few, etc.

And all of these guys were inspired by those same, exciting guys that we loved that defined uniqueness in the 90s. I think if the big two wanted to draw new and younger readers with their revamps, they'd holla at the new, up and coming and younger talents that are racking up millions of page views on DA and other blogs online, instead of looking for the next bryan hitch."

No offense to the guys who gravitate towards realism, but I think its kind of true. What do you think?

[NickRocks]

comics are boring nowadays, the art styles are blase. its why i read comics by the artists who are exciting, like MAD! and McG and JRJr

[RKillian]

Comics in general seem to be drawn better in a technical sesnse than they were years ago but they're so lifeless and dull that it doesn't matter. This is only compounded by how short the average issue is these days which makes me feel like I'm paying $4 to look at a couple of museum pieces versus being told an fantastic story of superhuman exploits. I'd almost rather we went back to the art of the 1960s if something would just happen that wasn't a cheap marketing ploy or nontroversy. Manga suffers from some of the same problems...read enough of that and you'll be tired of it too. What I did get into was attractive because it had some character or energy that seemed to be missing from alot of other stuff at the time. I wish I was better at creative writing so that I could be part of the solution instead of just complaining about the problem...

[Huerta]

Comics in general seem to be drawn better in a technical sesnse than they were years ago but they're so lifeless and dull that it doesn't matter. This is only compounded by how short the average issue is these days which makes me feel like I'm paying $4 to look at a couple of museum pieces versus being told an fantastic story of superhuman exploits. I'd almost rather we went back to the art of the 1960s if something would just happen that wasn't a cheap marketing ploy or nontroversy. Manga suffers from some of the same problems...read enough of that and you'll be tired of it too. What I did get into was attractive because it had some character or energy that seemed to be missing from alot of other stuff at the time. I wish I was better at creative writing so that I could be part of the solution instead of just complaining about the problem...

MAnga means comics, so I don't how that would get tiring. If you mean the big eye, pokemon style, then yes, that could get boring. But Manga has so many interesting stories and crazy styles that they blow american comic books out of the water. They don't take themselves seriously and they actually draw fantastical images to amplify the story-telling, instead of using "serious" technical artists. Imagine if Coipel, Yu or Ross drew Naruto? Yeah, Nofunville.

[Lord Dubu]

MAnga means comics...

In the tradition of calling a Japanese style comic books manga... I'm going to start referring to any cheeses from France as fromage. Because it's important to demonstrate that I recognize the origin of something by using the word specific to its origin!

/snark

[RKillian]

I meant comics as "American comics" and manga as "Japanese comics." Some of the stuff that's repeated over and over in manga gets tiring too. Difference for me is that the art's more likely to have a little oomph behind it. Paging through mainstream comics at the shop, whoever said it was like an illustrated movie pitch hit the nail on the head. Love the DCAU to death but can't really get into DC Comics and pick up most of my based-on-a-TV-show comics for something, anything, to read that isn't a book.

[Epic]

I love styles that suit their stories. My favorite artists are the ones who change their styles in varying amounts to suit whatever it is that they're working on. My favorite of said artists being Stuart Immonen.

[JJ Mckool]

I love styles that suit their stories. My favorite artists are the ones who change their styles in varying amounts to suit whatever it is that they're working on. My favorite of said artists being Stuart Immonen.

I appreciate that a lot more too. I think style is a marketing trick that artists have used to help make a name for themselves, but I think if the entire comic is good then it can't hurt to have your name attached. Your style as an artist does just kind of happen, but a guy doesn't have to be caged by it.

[Fallenangel]

I always liked more realistic comics, but there is a unique skill that not many of the contemporary artists have, this skills is about making the realistic comics filled with emotion, dynamic characters and energetic art (generally there are not many artists who can portray and convey emotions and "energy", and even less of them end up in comic book making).

Since i was a kid i got inspired by the art of Turner/Silvestri and others from the 90's, they had that "energy" in their art that drew me to their books (though i barely knew any English), and there are some artists that had this energy even when they did "hyper realistic" books, especially European artists (like Serpieri) but they knew when and how to bend the rules of reality to make their work interesting, live and just fun to look at.
These days i feel like every one is making the same mistake, like kids that are totally and absolutely into manga, they draw without any "life" without trying to make something new or exciting (like they did in the 90's), they just draw to get better....
at a certain point they reach the skills of the pro. and start working for a company, but they don't have that "spark"/new ideas they again, just draw. And the kids look at their work and start to mimic them and thus making it even worse for the next generation...and that cycle goes on and on.
You'd be surprised to know that it occurs in many different fields of art and science....due to the effects of globalization and internet openness there are thousands of people that are making art or science but there is a really miniscule amount of "new ideas" ....that's the world that we live in today. :(

[50%grey]

O god, I really want to say something here cause this sounds like the same Bullshit I heard from every FUFU artist I've met in my life.

I think I'm going to just going let this one go tho, cause I dont want to nerd rage haha =P

[Epic]

No comment.

[Fallenangel]

O god, I really want to say something here cause this sounds like the same Bullshit I heard from every FUFU artist I've met in my life.

I think I'm going to just going let this one go tho, cause I dont want to nerd rage haha =P

I don't expect from anyone to agree with me... :) (shamefully...goes back to the drawing board to practice anatomy)

[Donnstar]

I agree with you. the new hyper realistic style is so bullshit. the worst is when all the poses look like they just had a heart attack.

I especially CAN NOT stand the over crosshatching, or glowing edges. THe current comic style is ugly.

[Ace Corona]

I chose Old School/Golden Age, partly because that is within the scope of my current abilities. If I was to choose the ideal comic style, I would say hyper-realistic is something artists should try to achieve.

[Orphangrinder]

...I would say hyper-realistic is something artists should try to achieve.Why do you feel that artists should try to achieve that?

[Ace Corona]

Why do you feel that artists should try to achieve that?

I didn't spot this post until tonight. Sorry for not responding sooner. The reason I feel artists should try to achieve a hyper-realistic look is because it is beyond the scope of my current abilities, and I think it is something I should strive for, to expand my horizons.

[MRosa]

None of the four choices appeals to me. For me a good comic book shouldn't have problems shifting its art style betwene pages, even between panels; why, I'm even all for mixed media in the same panel. J.H. Williams III is doing great work in that sense these days.

[Duhburger]

Bill Watterson
Walt Kelly
Greg Capullo
John Krisfulusci
Serpieri

There's seem to be a drought these days for original ideas. Its possibly due to the fact because we're over stimulated by special effects laden films and endless entertainment with little content. Maybe we forgot that being bored isn't a bad thing. That boredom could be a good thing. A breeding ground for fresh ideas.

Just saying.

[NickRocks]

Greg Capullo is the freshest artist DC has had for YEARS and he's getting a ton of hate for his art style in some circles

[hellblazer72]

i'd go with stylistic art. guys like chris bachalo, joe mad and humberto ramos. when super hero art gets too realistic, it goes from looking like super heroes to looking like guys dressed in costumes going to a costume party.

[khmer]

I'd never be able to narrow it down. I don't think the whole subject is given to mutual exclusivity. Though I do get tired of the whole thing of bad anatomy being passed off as Manga or whatever. Don't get me wrong there is some good Japanese manga out there... we get tons of it where I'm at in Hong Kong... but it seems there is a whole generation of artists who seemingly just gave up on learning proper anatomy and said 'sod it... I'll call it manga'. Dire.

Though I've seen some things take influence from it that I really, really liked.. Joe Mad's Battlechaser's was visually very, very pleasing. Curious how it will hold up in 20 years.

I grew up on Jack Kirby, Steve Dikto and Frank Frazetta. You just take it in and some of you still like from a nostalgic angle. I've always been the biggest fan of Kirby just because he always portrayed the Thing in a way that made sense... much of that would have been the writing. Just working class Joe trying to make sense out of this crazy world. That always appeals to me.

I was a huge fan of John Buscema's Conan...and then later when I was older and had access to the rest of Buscema's work I realized just how good he was all the way around.

These days I try to keep up on as many of the Franco-Belgium comics (Band-Desinee) as I can because I find their artwork superb... the one that I constantly find myself reading and rereading is Blacksad by Diaz Canales and Guarnido...

http://www.google.com.hk/search?gcx=w&q=Blacksad&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1440&bih=770&sei=Id69Ts_hNInqmAWknKi8BA

story and artwork is pretty much at the top of the heap IMHO. But there are so many French/Italian/Euro comic artists that just have a whole different sensibility about their work that I just can't get enough of.

When I was kid the only way to see any of this type of comic/art was via the pages of Heavy Metal Magazine. I still pick up old copies here and there... but more than ever it seems it's about porn comics than what it used to be.

Someone dropped of a copy of Marvel's AVENGERS/INVADERS - ugh. It's beyond bad in my opinion. I really hope the penciler/inker/colorer aren't on here because this is the worst looking stuff I've seen in years. Just really not even readable. If this is the state of comics today... no thanks. It's garbage. The only glimmer of redemption for this rag would be the color paintings by Alex Ross. It's depressing it's that bad.

I also like a lot of stuff like Bone, any of the Eisner/Spirit stuff and Walt Kelly's Pogo.

[Whune]

Moebius, Darrow, Liefeld (yes, that guy) Arthur Rackham, da Vinci, Michelagelo, Otomo, Toriyama, Madd, Frank Miller, Shirow, Toth, Joost Swarte, Bill Waterson, Cam Kennedy, Scott McCloud, Mignola, Arthur Adams, Sam Kieth, Adam Huges, Frazetta Winsor McCay...

it's not the style it's the artist
whether the art be martial, musical, or graphic in nature

[Jonny-Ledford]

Moebius, Darrow, Liefeld (yes, that guy) Arthur Rackham, da Vinci, Michelagelo, Otomo, Toriyama, Madd, Frank Miller, Shirow, Toth, Joost Swarte, Bill Waterson, Cam Kennedy, Scott McCloud, Mignola, Arthur Adams, Sam Kieth, Adam Huges, Frazetta Winsor McCay...

it's not the style it's the artist
whether the art be martial, musical, or graphic in nature

That is an impressive list and I agree with 99.999% of that save the Liefeld choice. It's not just based on his art it is based on him. I met him in '98 at the Las Vegas Comics Expo. He was none too nice on top of being very unprofessional. Arrogance and attitude really have NO place when dealing with the general public. Looking for up an comers etc. And, even if I am going to not take exception to being treated poorly, they need to be a flat out legend or master craftsman at the trade... He ain't.

But, yeah those are incredible artists and storytellers. I have always gravitated to what I consider "Light and shadow and fold artist". Bernie Wrightson, Tim B. Vigil, Dale Keown, Reed Crandall, Wally Wood, Hal Foster, Jack Davis, Al Williamson, Mike Ploog, and I would have to say in this day and age Angel Medina, Greg Capullo, and David Finch.
Texture, folds, shadow and grit seem to make a book tell its own story. The backgrounds become there own character. As does every wound, gun blast, street light, rain.

Rendering an image with detail, flair and extreme light and shadow is becoming a lost art. Photoshop has let the penciler get a bit more free to NOT fill in dynamics. Why draw when you can filter it, blur it, paste it, patch it, clone it. Detail is in the CS brush now, not the inkers brush a lot of times. When the two fuse though. Artists that take an old school approach with the new coloring processes, it becomes incredible.

[Whune]

That is an impressive list and I agree with 99.999% of that save the Liefeld choice. It's not just based on his art it is based on him. I met him in '98 at the Las Vegas Comics Expo. He was none too nice on top of being very unprofessional. Arrogance and attitude really have NO place when dealing with the general public. Looking for up an comers etc. And, even if I am going to not take exception to being treated poorly, they need to be a flat out legend or master craftsman at the trade... He ain't.

But, yeah those are incredible artists and storytellers. I have always gravitated to what I consider "Light and shadow and fold artist". Bernie Wrightson, Tim B. Vigil, Dale Keown, Reed Crandall, Wally Wood, Hal Foster, Jack Davis, Al Williamson, Mike Ploog, and I would have to say in this day and age Angel Medina, Greg Capullo, and David Finch.
Texture, folds, shadow and grit seem to make a book tell its own story. The backgrounds become there own character. As does every wound, gun blast, street light, rain.

Rendering an image with detail, flair and extreme light and shadow is becoming a lost art. Photoshop has let the penciler get a bit more free to NOT fill in dynamics. Why draw when you can filter it, blur it, paste it, patch it, clone it. Detail is in the CS brush now, not the inkers brush a lot of times. When the two fuse though. Artists that take an old school approach with the new coloring processes, it becomes incredible.

yeah,
obviously an oversight to leave out foster, Wood and williamson;
but there's so many greats
I think I was trying to cover all the broad bases.

As for Liefeld... everyone has their strengths and weaknesses
Everything about Liefeld is in your face.
His sense of dynamic composition is brilliant in my opinion.
Call me a bleeding heart; but I wouldn't be surprised if his alleged *sshole nature isn't a defensive development in reaction to all the hate that is hurled his way.
Footage I've seen of him when he was younger... he didn't come off that way to me at all.
At any rate... I tend to make distinction between a craftsman's work and they as a person.

[Popninja]

As for Liefeld... everyone has their strengths and weaknesses
Everything about Liefeld is in your face.
His sense of dynamic composition is brilliant in my opinion.

I would have accepted that opinion about Liefeld 20 years ago, but it doesn't hold up at all in 2012. He's out of his element now and he doesn't have the knowledge to hold his own with any of the other guys on your list.

[Whune]

I would have accepted that opinion about Liefeld 20 years ago, but it doesn't hold up at all in 2012. He's out of his element now and he doesn't have the knowledge to hold his own with any of the other guys on your list.

Well...

Actually I'm only meaning to refer to his work from 20 years ago.
I'm not really familiar with anything past I dunno... Youngblood?
When I think Liefeld I think X-Force; and that's about it.

[Jonny-Ledford]

I feel he was merely a gimmick. From Spike Lee, and 501 jeans. To basically being the Image comics Jimmy Olsen. I can't like or respect his work. With me, it's as simple as he was breaking every rule in the book while he was a Marvel paid talent. He did not draw backgrounds. And I mean NONE. He constantly hid his his feet, because he basically could not draw them. Everything was a medium shot or 3 quarter profile pic. Tons of eye close ups. To hide his lack of knowledge of muscular anatomical structure he placed bandoliers and pouches on everything, even animals. When his physical movement was awkward he gave the page movement with anime'ish speed lines, and lots of them. He was legendary for having to have to stream word balloons into the bleed as he cluttered the page with huge head shots and over done helmets and left little to no room for lettering. He has had a blessed life. There are 13 year old kids at a local con right now that can draw circles around him. They will probably never have a full time paying art gig. Let alone become world famous or be part owner of a huge comic company. Lucky stars Rob, count em'...

http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/spookymulder68/robliefeldcaptainamericafail.jpg

He was paid and paid well for this... It doesn't matter what the argument is, it just looks very amateurish. Regardless of how he got there.

[Whune]

I feel he was merely a gimmick. From Spike Lee, and 501 jeans. To basically being the Image comics Jimmy Olsen. I can't like or respect his work. With me, it's as simple as he was breaking every rule in the book while he was a Marvel paid talent. He did not draw backgrounds. And I mean NONE. He constantly hid his his feet, because he basically could not draw them. Everything was a medium shot or 3 quarter profile pic. Tons of eye close ups. To hide his lack of knowledge of muscular anatomical structure he placed bandoliers and pouches on everything, even animals. When his physical movement was awkward he gave the page movement with anime'ish speed lines, and lots of them. He was legendary for having to have to stream word balloons into the bleed as he cluttered the page with huge head shots and over done helmets and left little to no room for lettering. He has had a blessed life. There are 13 year old kids at a local con right now that can draw circles around him. They will probably never have a full time paying art gig. Let alone become world famous or be part owner of a huge comic company. Lucky stars Rob, count em'...

http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/spookymulder68/robliefeldcaptainamericafail.jpg

He was paid and paid well for this... It doesn't matter what the argument is, it just looks very amateurish. Regardless of how he got there.

*shrugs*

t'was never my intent to argue anything definitive.

In my opinion he is/was excellent - one of the best ever - at dynamic composition;
and so I list him as one of my faves in that context.

I can respect that you discount his strengths because he is weak in areas that you value more highly or whatever... (such as anatomy)

but I disagree.

[Jonny-Ledford]

*shrugs*

t'was never my intent to argue anything definitive.

In my opinion he is/was excellent - one of the best ever - at dynamic composition;
and so I list him as one of my faves in that context.

I can respect that you discount his strengths because he is weak in areas that you value more highly or whatever... (such as anatomy)

but I disagree.

Please don't get me wrong Whune, I truly respect your list. And in truth I respect your respect of Rob. I just do not share it. Anyone on this forum or any comics illustration forum who has taken the time to take this seriously. Who has attended a con for a review and possible work, knows that the all seeing all judging eye of the editor is watching. Then the stainless steel critique hits and you hear those famous words. Anatomy, perspective, lay out, structure, finishes etc. I just feel that somehow for some reason the harshness was not there for him (Rob). I think once you are in, you are in. Back in those days you landed an X book you were a celebrity. The rest is history. I just think "the bar" slides up and down for some people and if you are a talented unknown, it's about 180 stories high.

I will say this in opposition to all my Rob negativity. I think the man has great heart and love for the business, and I think his characters had a lot of creativity to them when he was in a good place in his career. I also think he had an eye for what sold and made his characters look good. Like hiring Stephen Platt. Who was a lot like Rob, but the art was tighter and bit more finished looking. But, it wasn't an attack on your likes. It was just a vast contrast from Windsor MacKay to Leifeld. I thought it was worthy of a small discussion. Wasn't intended as an attack you. I am sorry if it came off that way.

[Whune]

Please don't get me wrong Whune, I truly respect your list. And in truth I respect your respect of Rob. I just do not share it. Anyone on this forum or any comics illustration forum who has taken the time to take this seriously. Who has attended a con for a review and possible work, knows that the all seeing all judging eye of the editor is watching. Then the stainless steel critique hits and you hear those famous words. Anatomy, perspective, lay out, structure, finishes etc. I just feel that somehow for some reason the harshness was not there for him (Rob). I think once you are in, you are in. Back in those days you landed an X book you were a celebrity. The rest is history. I just think "the bar" slides up and down for some people and if you are a talented unknown, it's about 180 stories high.

I will say this in opposition to all my Rob negativity. I think the man has great heart and love for the business, and I think his characters had a lot of creativity to them when he was in a good place in his career. I also think he had an eye for what sold and made his characters look good. Like hiring Stephen Platt. Who was a lot like Rob, but the art was tighter and bit more finished looking. But, it wasn't an attack on your likes. It was just a vast contrast from Windsor MacKay to Leifeld. I thought it was worthy of a small discussion. Wasn't intended as an attack you. I am sorry if it came off that way.

I think people simply forget:
Kids don't know anything about anatomy; or perspective; or any of that stuff;
but also I think people forget that editors know kids don't care about that stuff.
Kids aren't discerning of things like craft.
They just know whether they like something; or not.

I didn't take it as a personal attack.
I'm just probably defensive about being argumentative.
It is a vice of mine;
and I'm working on simply having opinions.

"It was just a vast contrast from Windsor MacKay to Leifeld."

Yeah; and I'm failing to see what's remotely wrong with that.
Both are unparalleled.
Neither can do what the other does best.

ah damnit;
look what you made me do:
argue.

*chuckles*

(i am of course being facetious)

be well.

[Jonny-Ledford]

I think people simply forget:
Kids don't know anything about anatomy; or perspective; or any of that stuff;
but also I think people forget that editors know kids don't care about that stuff.
Kids aren't discerning of things like craft.
They just know whether they like something; or not.

I think you are absolutely right about this... I think the demands put on us trying to work and get work, make us forget it. It's a great thing to keep in mind. I actually miss the dazzled wow factor of being a young reader sometimes. I stand corrected.

[Whune]

I think you are absolutely right about this... I think the demands put on us trying to work and get work, make us forget it. It's a great thing to keep in mind. I actually miss the dazzled wow factor of being a young reader sometimes. I stand corrected.

^_^

ain't that the truth.

It is perhaps sadly ironic that I admire Liefeld; and yet nurture my perfectionistic obsessions with anatomy and the like.

[Aabh]

It's refreshing to see Manga style gaining ground... when I started drawing in 1989, Manga style was completely alien... and that, combined with my hideously green style (I mean, really... I had JUST started :D) meant I found a LOT of resistance. It was very discouraging.

Now even people who have hidden under rocks can look at my style and say "Oh, he's a Manga style artist" without starting on the "Your eyes are too big, your mouths are too small and your legs are too long..." as the beginning of the critique.

As a markedly younger man, I used to think that Manga style was the end-all be-all... but I grew up eventually ;) I started to broaden out, finding a true respect for Golden Age and even the Cartoon/stylized work. It takes just as much skill for all of the styles.

Now I'm a fan of skill. I don't really care what style it is, I love seeing artwork that has great care taken to master THAT style (Regardless of what style that is). It's a great and lovely thing :)

[Gamoche]

Great, I thought I was the only one to like that style and find that there is not enough of it out there.

[Jack Wong]

I like a cartoon that's real enough for you not to think of it as a cartoon - but if the drawings are too real you might as well be taking pictures of models to make your comics.

[Lonrott]

I like the dynamic artwork of today, but sometimes I feel like the draftsmanship of the Golden Age has been lost. Not every panel, page, few pages need to jump at you. I don't see as much work done for backgrounds, transitional panels and things that convey the background story.

[benjonesart]

My faves are the guys of shadow and light like Jae Lee, Kelly Jones, Deodato jr and my wild card will and has always been Rob Liefeld.

And before the bashing starts, we all know his weaknesses, they are blatant in a very in your face way. But the guy just does something to a page ( back in the day) that made you want to read it. Now as ive grown as artist and so has the industry grown in sophistication his stuff can be very comical. The reason Rob got big back in the day was because he was different from everyone else and his style really played upon what kids wanted then.

[benjonesart]

My faves are the guys of shadow and light like Jae Lee, Kelly Jones, Deodato jr and my wild card will and has always been Rob Liefeld.

And before the bashing starts, we all know his weaknesses, they are blatant in a very in your face way. But the guy just does something to a page ( back in the day) that made you want to read it. Now as ive grown as artist and so has the industry grown in sophistication his stuff can be very comical. The reason Rob got big back in the day was because he was different from everyone else and his style really played upon what kids wanted then.

[autowagon]

I'm sure i commented here before but i'm not going to go back and look what i said.
-
-i think the answer is the typical one, both. (realistic and cartoony) The distinction comes when your work shows the ability to do both cartoony and realistic. I don't like stuff like, i don't know, the art in Chew. It's an entertaining book but the art just isn't my thing. Good examples of what i like would be Jeff Smith who does cartoony and realistic. Alfredo Alcalla does both also and it is evident in their work that they can do both with no crutches. bernie wrightson's caricatures, Bisley does some wonky looking forms but his ability to draw hyper realistically is obvious.

[tuffyhills79]

yes I like artists whose panels are badass and convey motion and action with zeal and burst.

[solanki]

My favorite style in simple terms is Leinil Yu's description of his style- "Dynamic Pseudo-Realism."

[Silver Age Guy]

I'm a huge fan of the old school guys ! Growing up in the 1960's and early 70's, I was spolied being exposed to such greats like Kirby, the Buscemas, Romita Sr. , Will Eisner , Steranko, Neal Adams, Wrightson , Kaluta , Ploog, etc. Man I could go on and on with this list. When guys like McFarlane and Jim Lee came out in the 1980's , I didn't really take notice of them at first , probably because of the books they were doing ( Infinity Inc. and Alpha Flight ). It really wasn't until McFarlane went to Marvel and took over Spiderman ,that he suddenly became the flavor of the month along with Jim Lee and his work on the X-Men . Marc Silvestri is another example of a " Hot artist " who was going nowhere until he started doing a " X " Book in the late 80's / early 90's , but how in the **** Rob Liefeld ever got grouped in that category is beyond me. I have to admit to being a fan of Mssrs McFarlane , Lee, and Silvestri. Those 3 could draw the phone book and make it look like a epic. Liefeld on the other hand , is nothing more than a glorified swipe artist IMO. As far as today's talent, Rags Morales has to be at the top of my list . He is definately 100% original and doesn't try to be a Image clone with his style .

[Zippy]

My tastes tend to change from day to day, or month to month or something. Most of my favorites that remain my favorites for long periods of time share a cartoony, but with realistic grit aspect.

Bernie Wrightson and Gil Kane are probably my favorites from the "old school".
Tim Sale is someone who I consistently love, very cartoon noir in my favorite stuff of his.
Lately I've been on a big Sean Gordon Murphy and Rafael Albuqurqee (spelling?) kick. Not super realistic, but not super cartoony, very gritty.

I think maybe it's just my love for horror comics, but I like a lot of texture and grit. Cartoony or Realistic doesn't even really register to me as long as the artist is telling a story and showing movement and emotion.

[Arcane16]

I love Manga my favorite artist are: Kishimoto Masashi, Kubo Tite and Toriyama Akira.

[FD]

Hard to say about my favorite style... Specially because I myself don't really have a regular style. - The way that I draw always change from time to time (just like my mood), so I just try to not worry so much about it. - I mean, I like several different art styles, but when I happen to start working at something, I never know how it will end...

[Ace Corona]

I change my opinion to cartoony and oversimplified from hyper-realistic, I like the style of Bruce Timm. I want to develop a similar style.

[Ddesosa]

Frank Miller, in particular what he does in Dark Knight strikes again, I aspire to get to that level one day. I wasn't in love with the story like DKR but the art is absolutely incredible. He still does loads of experimenting with layouts and pages but it doesn't look like experimentation, it all just fits.

Also Barbara Canepa who does sky dolls and End, I want to learn to do soft coloring like her.

[fisherkingart]

Sorry, manga lol

[TheChosenOne]

Call me crazy but I love the cartoony styles like Joe Mad and J. Scott Campbell. I still love the 90's old school stuff. Todd McFarlance, Jim Lee, and Erik Larsen... Rob Liefield ... meh.... not so much. Greg Capullo is pretty much the best comic artist alive IMO. I love how there are so many styles and art is so subjective. Comic art is a beautiful thing.

I might get banned for being a big Todd fan in this forum though... funny if you think about it, how someone with horrible anatomy can make money in comics. Just my thoughts :)

[Tim_Gibson]

Old school, which you could guess if you saw my digital comic (http://www.mothcity.com/) Moth City :)

[angeltread]

i like a mix of style and realistic with lots and lots of details.
art adams
greg capullo
todd mcfarlane
geoff darrow
nick bradshaw (somewhat a art adams clone but coming into his own)
khari evans
and many more.

[angeltread]

I might get banned for being a big Todd fan in this forum though... funny if you think about it, how someone with horrible anatomy can make money in comics. Just my thoughts :)

why would you get banned. todd mcfarlane is great. its not so much bad anatomy as it is styalized anatomy. (sometimes it was bad) but still... it always looked cool.

[Pete Tha Creep]

I love all of those styles, if done in my flavor.

I like the realistic approach of Hal Foster's Prince Valiant equally to the cartoony style of, say, Hunt Emerson's Choleric Cat.
The clean lines of the many french and belgium artists, like Giraud, or Convard.
I think the poll should have included ligne claire as a choice, being so influential.
I love the dystopian work Geoff darrow did on Hard Boiled, or a Sokal portraying sheer nihilism in the animals faces of Inspector Canardo.

To me a style has to be UNIQUE. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Nakimon]

To me a style has to be UNIQUE. Nothing more, nothing less.

/signed.
Maybe the "hyper realistic"-style is the one I dislike the most, because these artistst often lack of emotion...somehow...

[deimosremus]

My favorite style isn't really in the options, I guess it's a mixture of golden age and hyper realist. I like the semi-realistic stuff, like Dave Stevens and William Stout.