Knowledge Waits is a feature where I just share some bit of comic book history that interests me. Today, we look at how the fan reaction to Frank Miller's recently announced Wolverine variant cover demonstrates the inflexibilty that fandom often takes to the form of comic book art.
There was a viral reaction on social media over the weekend in response to the release of Marvel's upcoming Ghost Rider/Wolverine: Weapons of Vengeance #1, which features a Frank Miller variant cover drawing of Wolverine...
This is the latest in a series of variant covers that Miller has been doing for Marvel, and while reactions to the other covers on social media haven't exactly been amazing, in general, they have been accepted better than his Wolverine variant cover. When it comes to art, one of the key things is that, of course, your reaction to any given piece of art is fair enough. If you don't like a piece of art, I'm certainly not going to tell you that you are "wrong." However, I think it is important to at least acknowledge that there is a big difference between saying you don't like a piece of art (totally acceptable) and dismissing the piece of art entirely because it doesn't fit into the form of comic book art that you prefer (much less acceptable). I think that is where some of the reactions to Miller's Wolverine are coming from, and it spotlights an inflexibility that often occurs in comic book fandom when it comes to the form of comic book art.
The default for fandom in comic book art is "realism"
While Neal Adams is clearly one of the greatest comic book artists of all-time, it is interesting to note that his influence has been so great that nowadays, fandom often tends to treat the Adams approach as almost a default "house style." The Adams approach, as Alex Grand and Michael Dean so eloquently pointed out in Adams' obituary in The Comics Journal was, "His images combined a detailed realism with an exhilarating dynamism, so that one could almost imagine meeting Batman on the street or squinting up at the stars to see the Avengers mixing it up with alien armadas." Obviously, comic book art is inherently not "realistic," but MORE realistic than less detailed art. In other words, there is this understanding that "detailed = better."
However, throughout comic book history, there are glaring examples where artists evolved from "detailed" into art that is just as good, if not better, than their original art style. For instance, look at the early comic book work of David Mazzucchelli on Daredevil. Here is his art in Daredevil #216 (I wanted to pick an issue from the point where he began inking his work)....
It's an excellent page, and it fits within that detailed approach that Adams made so popular. Mazzuchelli is a brilliant artist. However, as time has gone by in his career, he has evolved his approach, and now you get work like Asterios Polyp, which, of course, is very detailed in its own way, but not in the lines in the comic book....
Asterios Polyp is clearly not "realistic," and the lines are inherently not as detailed, but it's obviously still excellent artwork.
One of the most famous examples of this sort of thing is Bill Sienkiewicz, who, I am sure would gladly tell you that when he broke into comic books, he was trying to basically draw as close to Neal Adams' style of art as possible, and the end result was a very pleasing-to-look at art style, like this action sequence from Moon Knight #1 (by Doug Moench and Sienkiewicz, with inks from Sienkiewicz himself and his wife at the time, Franki, as well)...
Sienkiewicz soon wanted to experiment with his art style, and Moon Knight was a perfect place to do so, since the book was, you know, not Spider-Man or The Avengers or some more mainstream comic book series. Over time, Sienkiewicz developed a surrealistic mixture of art styles, working multimedia work into his art, as well, and when you see, for instance, his brilliant Stray Toasters series...
it is an outstanding piece of work, and yet it is so far outside of the box that the box is barely recognizable anymore.
That's where we are now with Frank Miller, whose work used to fit into that Adams sense of detailed realism, as seen in his classic Wolverine #1 cover that people on social media are often comparing to his new variant cover...
It's a great piece of comic book art, but it's a great piece of comic book art because it is well-designed, not because of any inherent superiority in detailed realism as a comic book art style. Miller's current art is clearly about breaking things down to their simplest form, to achieve power from simplicity.
Fandom often misunderstands style with effort
As a result, though, people often misunderstand stylized pieces like this as being like a lack of effort, when that isn't the case at all. We see this, too, with some of the modern reactions to John Romita Jr. on his current Amazing Spider-Man run. The latest issue has a scene with Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson talking and Romita Jr's designs of the characters expression have been criticized on social media as Romita Jr. not putting in enough effort into the faces...
And it is an absurd critique, because this is clearly just a case of Romita Jr's style. Check out Peter Parker: Spider-Man #95 from 25 years ago (same inker then as now, Scott Hanna)...
That's just how the guy draws Peter Parker and Mary Jane's faces! John Romita Jr. continues to be one of the best storytellers in the comic book form, like this action sequence from Amazing Spider-Man #13 (written by Zeb Wells, inks by Scott Hanna and colors by Marcio Menyz)...
That's an excellent piece of storytelling. Anyone who thinks John Romita Jr. isn't "bringing it" now as opposed to the past is just being silly.
However, with Frank Miller's recent work, it is clear that he clearly IS doing a different approach now than he did back in the past. And honestly, I think there is something to be said for the fact that perhaps occasional variant covers are not the best place to introduce this new approach by Miller to fandom, but it is also just as clear that Miller is simply doing a different artistic approach, and it is not a case of his style "breaking down" or him "losing it." He's doing something different...
You don't have to like this new style. I think it's cool, but you don't have to like it, but at the same time, you can't compare his COMPLETELY DIFFERENT approach to art now with his past work and try to draw comparisons in a straightforward way between them, any more than you can compare Mazzucchelli's Daredevil and Asterois Polyp and say "one is detailed, which is better." You have to be more flexible and allow for the fact that comic book art comes in many different forms, and adjust your takes accordingly.
If anyone has suggestions about interesting pieces of comic book history, feel free to drop me a line at brianc@cbr.com.