“The iconography does little to sharpen the point when the point is “Bush is evil. Arguments need not apply.”

What’s an example of a one-panel editorial cartoon that does put forth an “argument” rather than simply denouncing a person or practice as stupid/vicious/wrong?

True that. Of course on the good old net here it comes out like fact. IMO, (just to be clear), 99.99% of Image comic are a waste of time, if the sampling in the new previews is any indication.
And yes I’ve read Special Forces, which I like a lot (tho’ The Cowboy Wally Show is much better IMO), and I’ve read plenty of Madman stuff, but they just don’t compare. Those books are like really good hollywood movies, whereas for me, Eightball and Acme are like the best movies I’ve ever seen.

Baker and Allred are ok, but in no way is their work up to the level of Eightball or Acme. As for the rest, not even worth talking about in the same breath as Baker and Allred much less Clowes and Ware.

As for the worlds, I think the robot invasion at the end of Marvels, the prison and wastelands of Kingdom Come and the fantastic but familiar worlds in Paul Dini’s ‘Superheroes’, and the sickly ‘Uncle Sam’ speak to the artist’s ability to create that.

Pencils aside, in the instances where Ross didn’t do them (like in the Jim Lee Batman/ Superman poster, or the fold out in Evanier’s Kirby book) his colors and tones tell as much of a story as his realistic pencils do. I remember hearing Bruce Timm talk about how the colors influenced the colors in the JLA toon.

I think he’s the bee’s knees. He brings out the best in superhero comics with his art, which is whiz-bang simple fun, which is ironic considering what he’s known for. His art is direct, the colors are bright, and its hard not to ‘enjoy’ his work, even if you dislike it from a technical or philosophical standpoint.

Sure I will, at some point. Right now I’ve got a deadline to meet. Stay tuned, to my magazine sites, and remember to try and have some fun.

I disagree. I think the overreliance of photo references is, in fact, a crutch.

I think it limits an artist’s imagination, and it makes an artist’s drawings repetitious – ESPECIALLY when it comes to sequential art.

That said, in today’s marketplace, I understand why an artist who has deadlines and has to create “on demand” to pay the bills uses heavy doses of photo references.

I’m old school, I guess. I like artists who create their worlds spontaneously, and then, if they even have to, go back to tweak stuff for accuracy by referring to reference photos.

Face it: almost any artist of any skill level can copy photos. I don’t know how many high school kids I’ve seen over the years that could do so with ease. But I say, for sequential art, what’s the point? Why not just do fumetti?

Its stupid to dismiss an artist who references photos. Like it or not, the choice of color, the choice of model pose, and drawing the damn thing is an art in itself. Compare Alex Ross to the artists on Ultimate Fantastic Four or Thunderbolts. He references photos not as a crutch but as a way to make his art more solid.

Are my arguments handed down from God, imbued with the incorruptible characteristic of pure truth? Probably not. Are they more valid than someone who argues that, (for example) Alex Ross is a bad artist because his fans aren’t good debaters? I should certainly like to think so.

As for my being a jerk; if you say so. I have no interest in provoking you to name calling, my interest here is to argue the merits of Alex Ross. Your last two posts have been frustrating to me in that regard because you’ve given up even trying to outline Ross’s merits as an artist and the merits of the painting that I originally commented on. Those are what I want to discuss, not entry-level Critical Thinking and how much of a big stupid meanie I am.

As for Moonlight:

“Also, you may not like Ross’ work, but he is good.”

I think I’ll keep my own counsel on this one, as you too have given up even trying to explain why Ross is good.

(You can’t name any commercial contemporaries of Van Gogh? Really? Not Pyle or Nast or Mucha, or Doré to name some who to mind immediately?)

I’ll ask my mug, next time I have a cup of coffee. Also, you may not like Ross’ work, but he is good.

I’d also add that that last bit about all opinions being equal (though some being more equal than others) is an odious bit of uncritical thinking.

Also: Moonlight, your analogy is wonky. Van Gogh died penniless and unknown, Alex Ross will die fabulously rich and well loved in his field. A more logical analogy would be Alex Ross to Van Gogh’s commercial contemporaries, of which I can name none, which illustrates my point nicely.

Which is not to say Ross will fall into obscurity later only because he’s popular now. In my opinion he’ll fall into obscurity because he isn’t very good.

But predicting the future is a mug’s game, that we can be sure of.

OK, maybe I’ll play your game: it’s not bad art, it’s pretty darn Good Art, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

No, that’s kind of obnoxious, actually. How about, instead, we agree that in matters of aesthetics, other people might have different opinions from yours which are, at minimum, equally valid?

All that is irrelevant in the face of history. It is what it is.

If it goes for a lot of money; again, indictment, taste, etc.

Which still dodges the issue of “why,” and in doing so either shows incredible naiveté by painting Bush as someone who is simply evil without motivation, or a conscious shallowness of expression. Either way the finished product is a shallow piece of art.

As for your argument that the use of Lady Liberty represents something clever and purpose driven, I would say that if it did it was wasted effort. If Bush is going to be portrayed as a single-minded destroyer-of-all-that-is-good, what matter if he’s a vampire, or King Kong, or anything else? The iconography does little to sharpen the point when the point is “Bush is evil. Arguments need not apply.”

If the painting in question really does live on for a while, as the honorable Beat thinks it will, I would take that as an indictment either of artists for failing to level nuanced or clever or visceral criticisms of the President in the medium of painting, or an indictment of the taste of Americans who allow the painting to live on.

(As an aside, the bit about Dini/Ross was mostly snark. I do rather enjoy treating Ross as a personal comic book Sin Eater. Someone who knew me better would have called me out for the hypocrisy of putting all the blame for Kingdom Come on Alex Ross and none on Mark Waid, who is one of my favorite comic book writers. I just enjoy blaming Ross.)

Also, while I’m going on here, I’ll give you my two cents on the Bush painting. Far from being a simple “Bush is evil” statement, the artist chose (cleverly, IMO) a PARTICULAR evil icon. Not just mindless destruction or generic evil, but the image of the leader of a country draining the life’s blood from that very own country. He’s sucked it dry and now hungrily looks for more. Also, the psycho-sexual component of the Vampire myth can’t be ignored, and Ross uses this as well. After all, he’s not killing Uncle Sam, he’s metaphorically ravaging Lady Liberty.

Bush could have been likened to Godzilla, or Frankenstein, or King Kong, or anything. Hell, he could have been kicking puppies. These would all show the “evil” idea in broad strokes. Instead, I think the artist’s idea in the allegory is very precise and at least somewhat layered.

With all the subtlety and taste of hitting a kitten with a sledgehammer.

Whether you agree with the political statement implicit to the cover or not, it remains utterly abominable as a piece of art. There’s no mystery to it, no food for thought, no provocation other than the provocation for those who agree with that to loudly proclaim “I agree!” and for those who don’t to proclaim “I disagree!”

Beyond that it’s doesn’t only fail to capture the complexity of the situation but avoids any hint of complexity whatsoever. The painting says “Bush is evil.” But why is Bush evil? Is he a man with the best of intentions who is misguided into destroying all that we hold dear? Is he a craven opportunist looking to increase his own personal power? Is he merely an impotent figurehead? There’s no delicate shading here, only broad strokes.

Which is not to say a blunt statement can’t be art, but the painting also lacks the appropriate viscera to lift it out of the mires of its shallow thought processes. The only emotion here is a kind of college-dorm-room smugness. As if he showed the final product to his room mate and they both stared at it for minutes reverently intoning “oh man, so true.”

The craftmanship is there, as always with Alex Ross, but the soul is conspicuously lacking. It’s an Eric Clapton cover of a Robert Johnson tune; technically correct but not true.

(Full disclosure: I’m apolitical, believe that the government is and always will be in the hands of what Mencken called “jobholders” who are concerned only with perpetuating their own authority, and I dislike Alex Ross not only because his art style is flat and emotionless, but also because of his repeated artistic failures as a “concept man,” especially Kingdom Come, that whole Earth X debacle, and his current mucking about in Justice Society.)

I agree with this a little bit. He is getting stronger as a painter over all, but hasn’t ever broken out of what he was doing 10 years ago. Of course, it does put bread on his table, so good for him. Keep of the good work. I love Ross’ art. He’s a much better painter then I, and I’m damn good, if I do say so myself. However, I’d love to see him expand into new territories, like Dave McKean (Ross says McKean’s book Black Orchid inspired him to paint comics in the first place) is constantly doing. I’m not saying he should do stuff like McKean’s, but just to open up to more of the possibilities art has to offer. There are an awful lot of them, and I bet he could really kick some ass with them. He could always go back to what he was doing before, if no one buys it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. WHOA.

Whoa.

You can say what you think of Ross, pro and con, but comparing him to Ditko and Kirby is just so off the mark, it’s ridiculous.

I don’t mind Ross, I enjoy his work to an extent, but would enjoy to see him grow his talent, which I’m not seeing. I recognize that he’s an important part of this generation, but comparing him to the legends like that is just insane.