Post by G on Jul 12, 2009 2:13:54 GMT -5
I have to admit, I found this post and stole it to bring over here because I thought it was insightful to how people feel about artists. The writer claims its from Eric Larson. If it is, it makes sense to me.
I know I've often thought I've enjoyed an artists older work than their newer work. Bryne, Kirby, Buscema, Ditko are just a few that come to mind. This seems to indicate that technically the artist gets better and we appreciate it less. Not sure I agree that the artists get better in all cases. I do agree a familiarity with a style hurts our impression of an artist. We get the same-ole, same-ole feel after seeing ones art with the same style over and over (I think Curt Swan comes to mind for me there). Anyway, let me copy and paste the post someone made that I find entertaining. If you havent already read it, I hope it makes you think about how you view artist. I know it had an impact on me.
Erik Larsen posted a very insightful essay on the John Byrne Forum about the reasons that fans often prefer an artist's early work over his later work.
Byrne, of course, came back with some pissy replies.
But here's Larsen:
I know I've often thought I've enjoyed an artists older work than their newer work. Bryne, Kirby, Buscema, Ditko are just a few that come to mind. This seems to indicate that technically the artist gets better and we appreciate it less. Not sure I agree that the artists get better in all cases. I do agree a familiarity with a style hurts our impression of an artist. We get the same-ole, same-ole feel after seeing ones art with the same style over and over (I think Curt Swan comes to mind for me there). Anyway, let me copy and paste the post someone made that I find entertaining. If you havent already read it, I hope it makes you think about how you view artist. I know it had an impact on me.
Erik Larsen posted a very insightful essay on the John Byrne Forum about the reasons that fans often prefer an artist's early work over his later work.
Byrne, of course, came back with some pissy replies.
But here's Larsen:
ERIK LARSEN: We've all heard it before--and many have said it about an artist at one
time or another.
"Your old stuff was better."
And most artists who hear that can only cringe and say to themselves,
"really? Do you really prefer my work when I didn't know what I was
doing? When everything was crude and clumsy and awkward? You really
prefer THAT to THIS?"
And the answer is--yeah, kind of.
And it's not just a matter of the fan having been 10 or 12 or whatever.
There's a crude energy in many artists' early work that is lacking in later
work. What's interesting about it is that the work is often unpredictable
because the artist is figuring things out. An artist may struggle with a
hand, for example, and pull off something weird and strange yet beautiful
but hopelessly flawed. The artist may learn from that experience and
never do anything like it. the artist sees it as a failed experiment. The fan
sees it as interesting and unusual.
Years into it--the artist may have figured everything out. This is how he
draws a hand--this is the way he draws an explosion--this is a running
pose--a punching pose--and it may be very competent but to the
reader--it's lifeless and dull. They've seen it all before. They're familiar
with the artist's bag of tricks. It all looks the same.
To the artist-- it's baffling. It's maddening. Here they are--at the peak of
their powers--their work has fewer flaws than ever before--they're
figured everything out--worked out all the kinks. The anatomy is
stronger, the perspective is right on, the storytelling is clear, the
proportions are perfect and yet--fans aren't as enthusiastic as they once
were.
Neal Adams once said (or it's been attributed to Neal) that, "Your style is
everything you do wrong." If that is the case then an artist may have more
"style" as a rookie than as a seasoned vet. I can remember being
fascinated by certain aspects of artist's work which they ultimately refined
and lost from their styles. One artist may have given characters unusually
long heads or unusually large feet or hands. Years later those flaws were
gone, along with my interest in their work.
The thing is--if there's no change--fans grow bored as well. Familiarity
breeds contempt. Those aspects that made you love an artist when you
were 12 may make you loathe their work at 32. Which leads to a real
damned if you do--damned if you don't scenario. If you do
improve-- you may lose the fans who loved you for what you were--if
you don't improve they may grow bored with you and ridicule you
for your faults and how you've stagnated.
I don't know if there is a solution.
I do know that I've come to embrace my own awkwardness and try not to
erase and over think what I do. I try not to get in a rut--I strive to find
new approaches and challenge myself and struggle to find ways of making
things new. But it's not always easy. My hand has a tendency to default to
familiar solutions to drawing challenges--to resort to stock hands or
poses or faces. As difficult as it was to lay out those early pages--it can
be as difficult or more to find new ways of laying out a page--to avoid
the rut and try something new--especially with deadlines looming.
The thing is--I can look at any number of artists' work and see the
progression and even though I know that later work is superior of a
technical level--there's something very visceral, raw and exciting about
those artists' earlier work. It's often crude and ugly--but there's an
energy there which often gets lost.
In any case-- I thought I'd share and see what your thoughts might be.
No need to cite specifics if you're not inclined to offend anybody. And,
again, this is not directed at any one individual.
time or another.
"Your old stuff was better."
And most artists who hear that can only cringe and say to themselves,
"really? Do you really prefer my work when I didn't know what I was
doing? When everything was crude and clumsy and awkward? You really
prefer THAT to THIS?"
And the answer is--yeah, kind of.
And it's not just a matter of the fan having been 10 or 12 or whatever.
There's a crude energy in many artists' early work that is lacking in later
work. What's interesting about it is that the work is often unpredictable
because the artist is figuring things out. An artist may struggle with a
hand, for example, and pull off something weird and strange yet beautiful
but hopelessly flawed. The artist may learn from that experience and
never do anything like it. the artist sees it as a failed experiment. The fan
sees it as interesting and unusual.
Years into it--the artist may have figured everything out. This is how he
draws a hand--this is the way he draws an explosion--this is a running
pose--a punching pose--and it may be very competent but to the
reader--it's lifeless and dull. They've seen it all before. They're familiar
with the artist's bag of tricks. It all looks the same.
To the artist-- it's baffling. It's maddening. Here they are--at the peak of
their powers--their work has fewer flaws than ever before--they're
figured everything out--worked out all the kinks. The anatomy is
stronger, the perspective is right on, the storytelling is clear, the
proportions are perfect and yet--fans aren't as enthusiastic as they once
were.
Neal Adams once said (or it's been attributed to Neal) that, "Your style is
everything you do wrong." If that is the case then an artist may have more
"style" as a rookie than as a seasoned vet. I can remember being
fascinated by certain aspects of artist's work which they ultimately refined
and lost from their styles. One artist may have given characters unusually
long heads or unusually large feet or hands. Years later those flaws were
gone, along with my interest in their work.
The thing is--if there's no change--fans grow bored as well. Familiarity
breeds contempt. Those aspects that made you love an artist when you
were 12 may make you loathe their work at 32. Which leads to a real
damned if you do--damned if you don't scenario. If you do
improve-- you may lose the fans who loved you for what you were--if
you don't improve they may grow bored with you and ridicule you
for your faults and how you've stagnated.
I don't know if there is a solution.
I do know that I've come to embrace my own awkwardness and try not to
erase and over think what I do. I try not to get in a rut--I strive to find
new approaches and challenge myself and struggle to find ways of making
things new. But it's not always easy. My hand has a tendency to default to
familiar solutions to drawing challenges--to resort to stock hands or
poses or faces. As difficult as it was to lay out those early pages--it can
be as difficult or more to find new ways of laying out a page--to avoid
the rut and try something new--especially with deadlines looming.
The thing is--I can look at any number of artists' work and see the
progression and even though I know that later work is superior of a
technical level--there's something very visceral, raw and exciting about
those artists' earlier work. It's often crude and ugly--but there's an
energy there which often gets lost.
In any case-- I thought I'd share and see what your thoughts might be.
No need to cite specifics if you're not inclined to offend anybody. And,
again, this is not directed at any one individual.
