Adam Tyner

Sal Buscema was drawing Spectacular when I first started reading Spider-Man regularly in 1988, so I guess I'm just used to that style.

Jon Bogdanove's X-Factor art in the early '90s is probably my least favorite ever, with Igor Kordey's New X-Men fill-ins coming in as a very close second.

brayzie

Totally disagree.

He had a very distinctive style during his Spectacular Spider-man. I can't imagine Bagley, Larsen, or McFarlane being able to convey the emotion of DeMatteis' scripts the way Buscema did.

As a kid I wasn't a big fan of his, instead preferring the flashier future Image founders' styles, but Spectacular was the Spider-man title that I remembered the best. Looking back he's one of my favorite Spider-man artists.

Supermallet

Comic art doesn't have to be flashy to be good, but Buscema's Spectacular Spider-Man stuff is really rough. If I were running Marvel I'd have kicked him off the roster.

Timber

Odd that those are probably my 2 least favorite art runs as well. I simply didn't understand Bogdanove's art, it was bad before I even knew what bad art was.

I still blame Kordey for killing my love of comic books. I hated him on New, and he ruined X-Treme for me. I still say that was a big FU to Claremont by taking Laroca off the title and putting Kordey on there as his replacement.

mrhan

Compared to his brother John, his work is weak.

Graftenberg

That's Sal inking his own work, later in his spectacular run they used other inkers.

brayzie

I liked it better than the artists who were drawing Web Of Spider-man at the time.

Sonic

I used to be a heavy comic book collector many years ago. I loved The New Mutants. After a certain number the quality of art went down hill, this was around the time Warlock came into the scene. Here is an issue of the artwork that I found:





Does anyone know who the artist is?

whotony

Maybe Bachalo

nope


Bill Sienkiewicz

Timber

Bill Sienkiewicz?

I think there is a line between extremely stylized and "shitty".

I personally don't care for Sienkevicz. I never liked Stroman and was never a fan of Windsor-Smith but I recognize what they're doing. While I would never call their art "shitty" I certainly would call that Buscema art above shitty.

edit: whotony beat me too it but he did remind me that even though Bachalo is in that stylized catagory as well his is a style that I really enjoy.

Sonic

You are absolutely right. I shouldn't have said shitty because I actually kinda dig it from a painting perspective (looks like some Picasso style thing going on).

But I remember having a hard time embracing that style. I was still collecting the issues but hoping the artwork would go back to looking more refined and not so square.

jrsl76

That is definitely Bill Sienkiewicz.

kodave

Check out Sienkiewicz's work with Frank Miller on Elektra: Assassin an Daredevil: Love and War. Not great stories (written by Miller), but the art is just a trip to look at.

davidh777

I was always a fan of Sal because I grew up on his '70s stuff, like The Defenders and (I think) Marvel Team-Up. The above does look sloppy, though.

Very nice--which Conan run is that? Something from Savage Sword?

ytrez

I must be old because I'd read anything by Sal Buscema before ANY Image artist. Jim Lee included.

The printing on those 90's issues was especially bad, being in flexographic format. I recall an issue, with Green Goblin I think, that was printed standard that looked great. One of my favorite pieces of his work. And his older Hulk work stands on a level all its own.

His brother was certainly a better draftsman but Sal submitted quality work every time and while I can't say he was never late, I bet it was a rarity. He was a true professional. (and those John B. pages certainly look like Savage Sword to me)

As to Sienkiewicz, his issues of New Mutants were a revelation to me. Everything after him seemed so...normal. His work was certainly non-traditional but pretty spectacular to my eyes. He was doing "art" rather than drawing a comic book. I still find it surprising that he worked that style into a title like New Mutants, which was seemingly written to be a traditional book. That makes it all the better to me. If you don't like Sienkiewicz you'll never like the title but, if you can appreciate his work & style, go back and read New Mutants as an adult. You may be surprised.

fujishig

I'll admit, as a kid I also had a tough time with Sienkiewicz coming on the title, because I wasn't used to such stylized work. I also didn't really appreciate Frank Miller or even (gasp) Jack Kirby until way later on.

Speaking of Spidey artists, reading through that McFarlane Spidey omni, his art wasn't as refined as I remembered. It's also interesting hearing how Todd wouldn't follow the style sheets for the characters, which probably partially helped his success as his cartoony style really stood out in contrast to the other Spidey artists. It's also interesting to note the complaints from the old guard of artists, who could probably draw a lot better if they wanted to but were churning out pages as a business (with low page rates to boot) and didn't really appreciate this younger guard putting all this detail into the work...

I read that Life and Times of Bishop mini that Stroman did... while he was always very stylistic, I had a tough time following that one... I mean, a lot of that was set in the future so there was room for artistic license, but even stuff like baby Hope that should look human just doesn't.

Bachalo: I loved him on Death, and on Gen X, but when he went off and did Steampunk his stuff became nigh incomprehensible to me. I mean, it's beautiful but it's really, really hard to tell what's going on, which is kind of the point of sequential art.

Bogdanove: I appreciated his art in Man of Steel, but man I hated those X-factor issues of X-tinction Agenda.

Timber

I think there was a big leap in his art when he went from Amazing to starting Spider-Man. Then another big leap after he went on to Spawn after that short Spider-Man run.

I do wonder how much of it was an artistic leap and how much was just going to better paper and coloring. If I recall Spider-Man was a premium comic at the time and used better paper then Amazing and I know they used better coloring on the early Image comics then they were using at Marvel at the time.

fujishig

I don't think it's just coloring/paper. At that point in his career Todd had a lot more freedom, especially from deadlines, and as we saw once they went in business for themselves, deadlines are hard to keep. I don't remember what the gap was between Todd's Amazing work and his own Spidey title, but I'm sure he had ample time to do it.

mrhan

Speaking of Sienkiewicz. I actually thought he was a hack when he first started. It was obvious he was trying to be Neal Adams. He did his first work for Adams but I started to like his work after it started to evolve into something that was his own.

TheBang

I'm such a huge fan of Sienkiewicz. Some of the stuff he draws is just mind-blowing.

I was super-stoked to meet him at Comic-con last year; it was one of the highlights of the trip. I commissioned this sketch from him:



One of my favorite Sienkiewicz covers (a little Kelley Jones, but still awesome):

mrhan

I really liked the covers he did for Batman:The Widening Gyre

JasonF

I can't believe people are ripping on Seinkewicz and Our Pal Sal -- two of the great artists of the last few decades.

I love Sal's run on Spectacular Spider-Man and I really love the work he did on Thor with Walt Simonson writing.

Check out Sal's 70s work on the Hulk or the Defenders for a more conventional artistic style.

slop101

Sorry, Sal sucks.



I'm more of an Alan Davis man.

mrhan

I liked his early work on Batman:Year 2 and his run on Excalibur. Mark Farmer's inks look nice over his pencils.

whotony

I always thought that Davis and Neary were about the best team I can remember. Their run on Excalibur was greatness.