Unique Vs Generic Art - The Merits of Style

Comic art is something that has sparked about a million and a half conversations in my lifetime alone, from the artist dominated 90s I was born into, where artists controlled so much and sold books on name alone, to recent years, where an artist's unique style and skill can make or break a project, like a Skottie Young or JH Williams III. With another year that will surely be abundant with both beautiful and ugly art well under way, what better time could there be to talk about comic art? Or more specifically, to discuss unique art vs generic art.  Hit the jump as I break down what I think each means and argue the merits of unique art.

The guest poster for this article, Max Barnard, is a disillusioned comic fan and rambling aficionado of most things comics & manga. He posts nonsense on his own journal Comicflipper on a semi-regular basis and is always ready to moan about anything on his Twitter @comicflipper at the drop of a hat.

Unique vs Generic - A Definition of Sorts

To me, unique art is subjective, for the most part, but based entirely on a classic Mark Evanier anecdote that I'm sure you all know:

"[Jack] Kirby liked to innovate, not follow. His attitude was best summed up a few years later when he read that some new artist would be taking over on Captain America and hoped "to do it in the Kirby tradition."  Said Jack, "This kid doesn't get it. The Kirby tradition is to create a new comic.""

Whilst what King Kirby said applied to comics in general, when applied specifically to art, it rings truer than ever. Unique art is new, fresh and, most importantly, different from what has come before it. It can be good, bad, or straight up controversial, but the fact that the art is unique earns it more points from me than if it were to be generic art aping popular or contemporary styles that kind of blend together to the point you can't even tell which random artist du jour's work you are looking at.

Note that generic art is not necessarily bad art either. In fact, most of the artists I'm going to define as 'generic' here are incredibly competent and have earned the praise they've gotten over the years. The main issue that has brought about this guest post is that these artists could all be the same person for all we know due to what can be called the 'Image style'. You know what I mean, that identical art that comes from anyone inspired by those years of prominence for the Image artists like Jim Lee, Whilce Portacio or Marc Silvestri. 

Unique vs Generic - Compare & Contrast

Round 1: Batman - Frank Quitely vs Tony Daniel

Art from Frank Quitely's Batman and Robin

This example is almost a no-brainer comparison and admittedly more than a little unfair. Frank Quitely is one of the most celebrated artists of our time, with a style so recognizable that you can name the artist from just a glance at any of his work. He's inimitable in his crisp, expressive linework and, through the talented writers he's worked with, Quitely has managed to push the boundaries of how a comic book should look, evolving in ways he's both criticized and loved for. 

Art from  Tony Daniel's Batman: Battle for the Cowl

On the other hand Tony Daniel has a style that can easily be imitated, and routinely is, to the point that it's hard to tell who the original style evolved from.  It's mostly because of the fact that it's heavily based on the old Image style from the 90s, featuring high energy and 'dynamic' poses that get the job done, but don't do anything different to any of the other artists of that era (though his Batman work is admittedly far more identifiable than his old work on titles such as X-Force or... anything Image).

Neither of these two are anything other than great artists and both are connected by a common collaborator in Grant Morrison on Batman, but, if you were shown a random drawing done by either artist, the one you'd identify straight off the bat would be the unique stylings of industry legend Frank Quitely.

Round 2: New Avengers: Stuart Immonen vs David Finch

Art from Stuart Immonen's New Avengers

New Avengers has been a haven for artists over its 5-year run, thrusting them in the faces of tens of thousands of readers month on month, usually to some positive effect. From Frank Cho to Leinil Yu, appearing in New Avengers as an artist can lead to lucrative follow-up work. Surely, that means that the artists would all be worthy of note, yes?

For the most part, this is true with current artist Stuart Immonen as the prime example of this. His art has managed to stay both highly praised and unique over the majority of his works (let's all ignore the age old 'ROCK N ROLL' comics he used to illustrate), with New Avengers being no exception. His work is recognizable at a glance with a style all his own, whether it's cartoony as all hell, like his Nextwave: Agents of H.A.T.E., or the slightly more detailed work on display in New Avengers. It's the freshest the title has looked in a long time and will surely skyrocket Immonen into his deserved place as a comics legend in the coming years.

Art from David Finch's Avengers

David Finch, however, isn't an artist whose work on New Avengers can be said to have actually stood out. The man has done some very solid work on a bunch of Image titles (where such art is incredibly well-suited) and his 8-issue run on Moon Knight is atmospheric and stands up there with some of my favourite art runs on any marvel comic. But the man is far too generic for the pedigree of Avengers. Not just that, but the style is so ill-suited to a team that be anything like the dark and gritty titles that an artist like David Finch should be stuck to.

In fact, Finch is perfect for a title like Batman, something that hopefully will happen sooner rather than later now that the man is DC-exclusive (a match made in comic heaven, I assure you).

Round 3: X-Men - Chris Bachalo & Humberto Ramos vs Marc Silvestri, Billy Tan & Scot Eaton

Left: Art from Chris Bachelo's X-Men; Right: Art from David Finch's Uncanny X-Men

A bit of a cluster of artists here, but with no other round would my point ring more true. Messiah Complex was one of the most high-profile crossovers in a long time for the X-Men line and with good reason - it took a tonne of notable x-people and threw them into a tense chase/investigation dealio after the first mutant birth since M-Day (something I won't say too much about because it has holes), all done across four titles and a one-shot. ALL of which had different artists between them.

The generic art quickly became a sizeable issue, however, when the first three issues of the crossover turned out to have incredibly similar, albeit brilliant, art styles to their names, which, whilst not really an issue in the singles themselves, quickly became a peculiar nuisance when the series went to trade. You could be forgiven for thinking that you just read one massive chapter with slightly inconsistent levels of buxomness or with one section having more crosshatching than the previous, but then you are suddenly hit with a striking change in chapter four. Note that this isn't as much an attack on the event or the artists, but if it weren't for the covers separating the issues there really wouldn't be enough to make you know when the next artist steps up to the plate.  Some could even say this is a boon to a crossover like this with having such similar styles for many of the artists and this is a failing of the unique styles from a marketing standpoint with a big event crossover.

Chapter four was, of course, when Chris Bachalo and Humberto Ramos began contributing to Messiah Complex's story. Both have styles that are so radically different to anything else being put out by Marvel comics, with every character they draw truly becoming 'their' character. Not that this uniqueness comes without flaws of its own. Ramos is considered one of the bigger acquired tastes of the industry, with hyper-exaggerated features that are so unlike anything else that, more often than not, people will look at it and be put off before they even read a page while Bachalo can be slammed on more than a few occasions for drawing things that don't really please people with his darker, moodier and slightly exaggerated pencils. But the point is that it's such a refreshing change in this 13-part event that they come out on top every time for me compared to the same ol', same ol' of the other artists whom I literally have to look up the names of on the covers of each issue to distinguish who is who. And that's really my entire argument in a nutshell.

Conclusion

So that's my argument in favour of unique art over generic art. To give it the full discussion it deserves would have taken a series of posts and countless hours of research, but then what am I actually driving at here? I suppose, if anything, it's that unique art should be hunted out and purchased whenever possible if only to support creativity in an industry designed around that exact concept. Not just that, but this argument could be a desperate plea to all 'generic' artists to try something new, to head out and surprise us all with a new approach to their work.

It's not an argument without faults though. People could easily throw examples at me where a unique art style was detrimental to the book, such as when Larry Stromann returned to X-Factor during Secret Invasion, which produced art that was so impenetrably exaggerated that the story being told fell apart, losing a large chunk of readership in the process.

So, I put it to you, oh dutiful reader, to find similar cases yourself for this argument, counterpoints to throw in the ring, or to just outright tell me how wrong I am and let me know if I should go back to my hovel and never guest post again.  At the very least, let me know where you stand on the generic vs unique art issue. 

Related Posts