“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?)