I would like to discuss something that I have noticed when reading / browsing mostly some of the current Egmont stories: Current Disney artists often fill their pages with som much background details. If you compare them to the Disney art of the 50's, the 50's art is much simpler in regard to background details and has a look of harmony, has better staging and the attention to detail in how the characters are drawn, this is present not only in the works of Barks and Murry, but actually any artist of that era. It pleases the eye, whereas the current art sometimes is just an overload of action and details. A sign of the times, maybe. Are the kids bored by clean simple drawing? Look at those old Taliaferro duck Sundays, the staging is so good and the details are so spot on, but only the details that are necessary to tell the story.
An artist like Branca pulls the "new detailed style" off because he's so talented, but I think some of the new talent might be better off working on the staging and drawing of the characters, than filling their spaces with lots of detailed background characters and trees and fences. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
Pages:
1
Author
Topic: Current Disney comic book art
(11 messages)
Humdum
Current Disney comic book art
Message 1 -
2013-07-22 at 23:29:11
Morequack
Current Disney comic book art
Message 2 -
2013-07-23 at 00:01:19
I agree with your observations. I think this phenomenon is largely a sign of the times. Just as TV commercials and TV cartoons aimed at young audiences of today are typically loud and overbearing, with no pause or quiet counterbalance to the obnoxious noise and visual clutter.
AzureBlue
Current Disney comic book art
Message 3 -
2013-07-23 at 00:03:06
I do agree that the older simpler comics often came across better overall. That said, detail can be beneficial.
Especially Rosa. :). He really mastered both detail and attention to overall setup etc.
Especially Rosa. :). He really mastered both detail and attention to overall setup etc.
Morequack
Current Disney comic book art
Message 4 -
2013-07-23 at 00:07:43
I think Rosa is an exception. His work is visually busy but it is beautiful, with structure and a masterful story that engages without annoyance.
AzureBlue
Current Disney comic book art
Message 5 -
2013-07-23 at 02:09:13
Quote from user: MorequackI think Rosa is an exception. His work is visually busy but it is beautiful, with structure and a masterful story that engages without annoyance.
Very well-put. Couldn't agree more.
Very well-put. Couldn't agree more.
Humdum
Current Disney comic book art
Message 6 -
2013-07-23 at 06:29:52
Quote from user: AzureBlueQuote from user: MorequackI think Rosa is an exception. His work is visually busy but it is beautiful, with structure and a masterful story that engages without annoyance.
Very well-put. Couldn't agree more.
Absolutely, Rosa's details are so brilliant that they add quality to the story. And even with those details, Rosa's pages are often very clean and staged in a straightforward manner that makes them easy to read despite the details.
Very well-put. Couldn't agree more.
Absolutely, Rosa's details are so brilliant that they add quality to the story. And even with those details, Rosa's pages are often very clean and staged in a straightforward manner that makes them easy to read despite the details.
Robb_K
Current Disney comic book art
Message 7 -
2013-07-24 at 05:58:37
Quote from user: HumdumI would like to discuss something that I have noticed when reading / browsing mostly some of the current Egmont stories: Current Disney artists often fill their pages with som much background details. If you compare them to the Disney art of the 50's, the 50's art is much simpler in regard to background details and has a look of harmony, has better staging and the attention to detail in how the characters are drawn, this is present not only in the works of Barks and Murry, but actually any artist of that era. It pleases the eye, whereas the current art sometimes is just an overload of action and details. A sign of the times, maybe. Are the kids bored by clean simple drawing? Look at those old Taliaferro duck Sundays, the staging is so good and the details are so spot on, but only the details that are necessary to tell the story.
An artist like Branca pulls the "new detailed style" off because he's so talented, but I think some of the new talent might be better off working on the staging and drawing of the characters, than filling their spaces with lots of detailed background characters and trees and fences. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
Barks used a good combination of necessary detail and open space to allow the important story elements to be followed easily. Many simplistic stagers, such as Riley Thompson and Phil DeLara didn't put in enough realistic detail for me to be interested in reading the story.Their portrayal of trees, hills, structures and characters didn't make them look like they could possibly have been real objects, or even representations of them. To me, they were just lines on paper. So, I had no interest in reading the stories (and I may have missed out on some good story writing. Barks, Gottfredson, Taliaferro, Jippes, Milton, early Branca, early Scarpa and a few others portrayed worlds that looked, at least like they were representations of existing or past life (of a sort), if not photos of it.
An artist like Branca pulls the "new detailed style" off because he's so talented, but I think some of the new talent might be better off working on the staging and drawing of the characters, than filling their spaces with lots of detailed background characters and trees and fences. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
Barks used a good combination of necessary detail and open space to allow the important story elements to be followed easily. Many simplistic stagers, such as Riley Thompson and Phil DeLara didn't put in enough realistic detail for me to be interested in reading the story.Their portrayal of trees, hills, structures and characters didn't make them look like they could possibly have been real objects, or even representations of them. To me, they were just lines on paper. So, I had no interest in reading the stories (and I may have missed out on some good story writing. Barks, Gottfredson, Taliaferro, Jippes, Milton, early Branca, early Scarpa and a few others portrayed worlds that looked, at least like they were representations of existing or past life (of a sort), if not photos of it.
Humdum
Current Disney comic book art
Message 8 -
2013-07-25 at 21:18:45
Quote from user: Robb_KQuote from user: HumdumI would like to discuss something that I have noticed when reading / browsing mostly some of the current Egmont stories: Current Disney artists often fill their pages with som much background details. If you compare them to the Disney art of the 50's, the 50's art is much simpler in regard to background details and has a look of harmony, has better staging and the attention to detail in how the characters are drawn, this is present not only in the works of Barks and Murry, but actually any artist of that era. It pleases the eye, whereas the current art sometimes is just an overload of action and details. A sign of the times, maybe. Are the kids bored by clean simple drawing? Look at those old Taliaferro duck Sundays, the staging is so good and the details are so spot on, but only the details that are necessary to tell the story.
An artist like Branca pulls the "new detailed style" off because he's so talented, but I think some of the new talent might be better off working on the staging and drawing of the characters, than filling their spaces with lots of detailed background characters and trees and fences. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
Barks used a good combination of necessary detail and open space to allow the important story elements to be followed easily. Many simplistic stagers, such as Riley Thompson and Phil DeLara didn't put in enough realistic detail for me to be interested in reading the story.Their portrayal of trees, hills, structures and characters didn't make them look like they could possibly have been real objects, or even representations of them. To me, they were just lines on paper. So, I had no interest in reading the stories (and I may have missed out on some good story writing. Barks, Gottfredson, Taliaferro, Jippes, Milton, early Branca, early Scarpa and a few others portrayed worlds that looked, at least like they were representations of existing or past life (of a sort), if not photos of it.
Totally agree that a strenght of Barks' is that you truly believe in the world of the ducks as a real place. But place a page of Barks' side by side with the current output and you'll see how disharmonic most new work seems. I saw a story by the very well respected and talented mr Ferioli, with a bunch of characters (12 or so) standing by a swimming pool, and every single character was very meticuosly drawn in detail, which must have rendered mr Ferioli a lot of work. I suppose one should be inclined to admire the effort, and I guess these guys really love to draw, but often these detailed drawings distracts the readability. Barks would, I think, never have drawn twelve people by a pool without making some of them black silhouettes or something. Aside from this, I would like to say that mr Ferioli is one of the best artists active today, but this goes to show that even the best artists today sometimes go overboard in details. This is just my opinion as a reader, I don't claim to be an expert on designing comics, (I have tried as an amateur, I guess many of us have).
I also agree (isn't it nice) that some artists were really lazy putting in background, but that was more a 1960's thing, I think. As for Riley Thompson I really loved his work in Mickey Mouse and the uninvited guest, I thought and still think it was almost genius-like (and with really nice background work, although I saw in Inducks that Carl Buettner might have been involved as well).
An artist like Branca pulls the "new detailed style" off because he's so talented, but I think some of the new talent might be better off working on the staging and drawing of the characters, than filling their spaces with lots of detailed background characters and trees and fences. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
Barks used a good combination of necessary detail and open space to allow the important story elements to be followed easily. Many simplistic stagers, such as Riley Thompson and Phil DeLara didn't put in enough realistic detail for me to be interested in reading the story.Their portrayal of trees, hills, structures and characters didn't make them look like they could possibly have been real objects, or even representations of them. To me, they were just lines on paper. So, I had no interest in reading the stories (and I may have missed out on some good story writing. Barks, Gottfredson, Taliaferro, Jippes, Milton, early Branca, early Scarpa and a few others portrayed worlds that looked, at least like they were representations of existing or past life (of a sort), if not photos of it.
Totally agree that a strenght of Barks' is that you truly believe in the world of the ducks as a real place. But place a page of Barks' side by side with the current output and you'll see how disharmonic most new work seems. I saw a story by the very well respected and talented mr Ferioli, with a bunch of characters (12 or so) standing by a swimming pool, and every single character was very meticuosly drawn in detail, which must have rendered mr Ferioli a lot of work. I suppose one should be inclined to admire the effort, and I guess these guys really love to draw, but often these detailed drawings distracts the readability. Barks would, I think, never have drawn twelve people by a pool without making some of them black silhouettes or something. Aside from this, I would like to say that mr Ferioli is one of the best artists active today, but this goes to show that even the best artists today sometimes go overboard in details. This is just my opinion as a reader, I don't claim to be an expert on designing comics, (I have tried as an amateur, I guess many of us have).
I also agree (isn't it nice) that some artists were really lazy putting in background, but that was more a 1960's thing, I think. As for Riley Thompson I really loved his work in Mickey Mouse and the uninvited guest, I thought and still think it was almost genius-like (and with really nice background work, although I saw in Inducks that Carl Buettner might have been involved as well).
AzureBlue
Current Disney comic book art
Message 9 -
2013-07-25 at 23:12:43
Quote from user: HumdumQuote from user: Robb_KQuote from user: HumdumI would like to discuss something that I have noticed when reading / browsing mostly some of the current Egmont stories: Current Disney artists often fill their pages with som much background details. If you compare them to the Disney art of the 50's, the 50's art is much simpler in regard to background details and has a look of harmony, has better staging and the attention to detail in how the characters are drawn, this is present not only in the works of Barks and Murry, but actually any artist of that era. It pleases the eye, whereas the current art sometimes is just an overload of action and details. A sign of the times, maybe. Are the kids bored by clean simple drawing? Look at those old Taliaferro duck Sundays, the staging is so good and the details are so spot on, but only the details that are necessary to tell the story.
An artist like Branca pulls the "new detailed style" off because he's so talented, but I think some of the new talent might be better off working on the staging and drawing of the characters, than filling their spaces with lots of detailed background characters and trees and fences. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
Barks used a good combination of necessary detail and open space to allow the important story elements to be followed easily. Many simplistic stagers, such as Riley Thompson and Phil DeLara didn't put in enough realistic detail for me to be interested in reading the story.Their portrayal of trees, hills, structures and characters didn't make them look like they could possibly have been real objects, or even representations of them. To me, they were just lines on paper. So, I had no interest in reading the stories (and I may have missed out on some good story writing. Barks, Gottfredson, Taliaferro, Jippes, Milton, early Branca, early Scarpa and a few others portrayed worlds that looked, at least like they were representations of existing or past life (of a sort), if not photos of it.
Totally agree that a strenght of Barks' is that you truly believe in the world of the ducks as a real place. But place a page of Barks' side by side with the current output and you'll see how disharmonic most new work seems. I saw a story by the very well respected and talented mr Ferioli, with a bunch of characters (12 or so) standing by a swimming pool, and every single character was very meticuosly drawn in detail, which must have rendered mr Ferioli a lot of work. I suppose one should be inclined to admire the effort, and I guess these guys really love to draw, but often these detailed drawings distracts the readability. Barks would, I think, never have drawn twelve people by a pool without making some of them black silhouettes or something. Aside from this, I would like to say that mr Ferioli is one of the best artists active today, but this goes to show that even the best artists today sometimes go overboard in details. This is just my opinion as a reader, I don't claim to be an expert on designing comics, (I have tried as an amateur, I guess many of us have).
I also agree (isn't it nice) that some artists were really lazy putting in background, but that was more a 1960's thing, I think. As for Riley Thompson I really loved his work in Mickey Mouse and the uninvited guest, I thought and still think it was almost genius-like (and with really nice background work, although I saw in Inducks that Carl Buettner might have been involved as well).
I think that bit about the black silhouette is where I really like stories to fall, and Barks typically delivered. Don't neglect the background, and make a pool that would be surrounded empty, but don't make it too busy either unless you're going to create a little masterpiece in a panel like Rosa. Add some silhouettes etc. to make the correct overall impression without distracting from the main focus of the panel.
An artist like Branca pulls the "new detailed style" off because he's so talented, but I think some of the new talent might be better off working on the staging and drawing of the characters, than filling their spaces with lots of detailed background characters and trees and fences. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
Barks used a good combination of necessary detail and open space to allow the important story elements to be followed easily. Many simplistic stagers, such as Riley Thompson and Phil DeLara didn't put in enough realistic detail for me to be interested in reading the story.Their portrayal of trees, hills, structures and characters didn't make them look like they could possibly have been real objects, or even representations of them. To me, they were just lines on paper. So, I had no interest in reading the stories (and I may have missed out on some good story writing. Barks, Gottfredson, Taliaferro, Jippes, Milton, early Branca, early Scarpa and a few others portrayed worlds that looked, at least like they were representations of existing or past life (of a sort), if not photos of it.
Totally agree that a strenght of Barks' is that you truly believe in the world of the ducks as a real place. But place a page of Barks' side by side with the current output and you'll see how disharmonic most new work seems. I saw a story by the very well respected and talented mr Ferioli, with a bunch of characters (12 or so) standing by a swimming pool, and every single character was very meticuosly drawn in detail, which must have rendered mr Ferioli a lot of work. I suppose one should be inclined to admire the effort, and I guess these guys really love to draw, but often these detailed drawings distracts the readability. Barks would, I think, never have drawn twelve people by a pool without making some of them black silhouettes or something. Aside from this, I would like to say that mr Ferioli is one of the best artists active today, but this goes to show that even the best artists today sometimes go overboard in details. This is just my opinion as a reader, I don't claim to be an expert on designing comics, (I have tried as an amateur, I guess many of us have).
I also agree (isn't it nice) that some artists were really lazy putting in background, but that was more a 1960's thing, I think. As for Riley Thompson I really loved his work in Mickey Mouse and the uninvited guest, I thought and still think it was almost genius-like (and with really nice background work, although I saw in Inducks that Carl Buettner might have been involved as well).
I think that bit about the black silhouette is where I really like stories to fall, and Barks typically delivered. Don't neglect the background, and make a pool that would be surrounded empty, but don't make it too busy either unless you're going to create a little masterpiece in a panel like Rosa. Add some silhouettes etc. to make the correct overall impression without distracting from the main focus of the panel.
Humdum
Current Disney comic book art
Message 10 -
2013-07-26 at 06:28:10
Quote from user: AzureBlueQuote from user: HumdumQuote from user: Robb_KBarks used a good combination of necessary detail and open space to allow the important story elements to be followed easily. Many simplistic stagers, such as Riley Thompson and Phil DeLara didn't put in enough realistic detail for me to be interested in reading the story.Their portrayal of trees, hills, structures and characters didn't make them look like they could possibly have been real objects, or even representations of them. To me, they were just lines on paper. So, I had no interest in reading the stories (and I may have missed out on some good story writing. Barks, Gottfredson, Taliaferro, Jippes, Milton, early Branca, early Scarpa and a few others portrayed worlds that looked, at least like they were representations of existing or past life (of a sort), if not photos of it.
Totally agree that a strenght of Barks' is that you truly believe in the world of the ducks as a real place. But place a page of Barks' side by side with the current output and you'll see how disharmonic most new work seems. I saw a story by the very well respected and talented mr Ferioli, with a bunch of characters (12 or so) standing by a swimming pool, and every single character was very meticuosly drawn in detail, which must have rendered mr Ferioli a lot of work. I suppose one should be inclined to admire the effort, and I guess these guys really love to draw, but often these detailed drawings distracts the readability. Barks would, I think, never have drawn twelve people by a pool without making some of them black silhouettes or something. Aside from this, I would like to say that mr Ferioli is one of the best artists active today, but this goes to show that even the best artists today sometimes go overboard in details. This is just my opinion as a reader, I don't claim to be an expert on designing comics, (I have tried as an amateur, I guess many of us have).
I also agree (isn't it nice) that some artists were really lazy putting in background, but that was more a 1960's thing, I think. As for Riley Thompson I really loved his work in Mickey Mouse and the uninvited guest, I thought and still think it was almost genius-like (and with really nice background work, although I saw in Inducks that Carl Buettner might have been involved as well).
I think that bit about the black silhouette is where I really like stories to fall, and Barks typically delivered. Don't neglect the background, and make a pool that would be surrounded empty, but don't make it too busy either unless you're going to create a little masterpiece in a panel like Rosa. Add some silhouettes etc. to make the correct overall impression without distracting from the main focus of the panel.
Thumbs up! (A thumbs smiley would be better but I don't know that one...)
Totally agree that a strenght of Barks' is that you truly believe in the world of the ducks as a real place. But place a page of Barks' side by side with the current output and you'll see how disharmonic most new work seems. I saw a story by the very well respected and talented mr Ferioli, with a bunch of characters (12 or so) standing by a swimming pool, and every single character was very meticuosly drawn in detail, which must have rendered mr Ferioli a lot of work. I suppose one should be inclined to admire the effort, and I guess these guys really love to draw, but often these detailed drawings distracts the readability. Barks would, I think, never have drawn twelve people by a pool without making some of them black silhouettes or something. Aside from this, I would like to say that mr Ferioli is one of the best artists active today, but this goes to show that even the best artists today sometimes go overboard in details. This is just my opinion as a reader, I don't claim to be an expert on designing comics, (I have tried as an amateur, I guess many of us have).
I also agree (isn't it nice) that some artists were really lazy putting in background, but that was more a 1960's thing, I think. As for Riley Thompson I really loved his work in Mickey Mouse and the uninvited guest, I thought and still think it was almost genius-like (and with really nice background work, although I saw in Inducks that Carl Buettner might have been involved as well).
I think that bit about the black silhouette is where I really like stories to fall, and Barks typically delivered. Don't neglect the background, and make a pool that would be surrounded empty, but don't make it too busy either unless you're going to create a little masterpiece in a panel like Rosa. Add some silhouettes etc. to make the correct overall impression without distracting from the main focus of the panel.
Thumbs up! (A thumbs smiley would be better but I don't know that one...)
Humdum
Current Disney comic book art
Message 11 -
2013-07-26 at 06:40:21
To be fair to Ferioli, I looked over the story I mentioned now, and there was a point to the story that Scrooge and Donald tried to gain entrance to an an all-women's club, so it was probably to strengthen that point that Ferioli drew a lot of women in detail, the end result being extremely busy pages, but perhaps unavoidable. The story is very well drawn, probably in the top 5 percent these days, so no shadow to fall over Ferioli.
Pages:
1