Drawn

Dump it! #1

Gerade eben über DRAWN! in diesem Beitrag ein schon älteres Video bei YouTube wiedergefunden. Hier zeichnet Adam Hughes, ein ‘good girl artist’, live bei einer Convention Supergirl. Sobald ich eine richtige Kamera habe, gibt es solche Vid…

[...] Es sólo la primera parte de un “tutorial” de Adam Hughes sobre cómo hacer bocetos. No tiene desperdicio. Gracias a Drawn! [...]

Awesome to see that come to life from idea to drawing.

Awesome to see that come to life from idea to drawing.

The Blogerati Files: Crumpled Caitlin

This week in the Blogerati Files, Crumpled Caitlin Describe your blog in 10 words or less. Art and Illustration straight off the mean streets of today. Why did you start your blog? Blogiversary? My blog was launched in January…

Funny, I really like to see people drawing, i care more about the process itself than about the final result. I’m not into super heroes, but I enjoyed watching this.

Funny, I really like to see people drawing, i care more about the process itself than about the final result. I’m not into super heroes, but I enjoyed watching this.

Yeah, it’s amazing to see him draw the hands… such confidence. You can almost see him imagining it there before he draws it. AH! has so much talent and skills.

Yeah, it’s amazing to see him draw the hands… such confidence. You can almost see him imagining it there before he draws it. AH! has so much talent and skills.

You know, it’s definitely crafty, but it’s also very How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way. It’s very formulaic, and it’s not even really his own formula. He does this style of drawing well, but then, there’s no individual personality in the thing. It’s almost diagramical the way he lays the whole thing out–like an architectural rendering. A very precise set of symbols, but who’s symbols? Steve Buscema’s? Andrew Loomis’?

You know, it’s definitely crafty, but it’s also very How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way. It’s very formulaic, and it’s not even really his own formula. He does this style of drawing well, but then, there’s no individual personality in the thing. It’s almost diagramical the way he lays the whole thing out–like an architectural rendering. A very precise set of symbols, but who’s symbols? Steve Buscema’s? Andrew Loomis’?

Adam Hughes is my favourite superhero illustrator to date. His lines are amazingly fluid and stylized, and he draws “good girls” like no one else out there. I agree that the characters rarely look different, personality-wise, from one another, but I’d say that’s more due to the state of female comic book characters in general than any fault of his own. Have a look at the [url="http://www.adamhughesart.com/cvrswz.asp"]cover he did for Wizard magazine[/url] for an example of him making use of expression and facial structure to differentiate some popular female superheroines/”bad girls”.

Adam Hughes is my favourite superhero illustrator to date. His lines are amazingly fluid and stylized, and he draws “good girls” like no one else out there. I agree that the characters rarely look different, personality-wise, from one another, but I’d say that’s more due to the state of female comic book characters in general than any fault of his own. Have a look at the [url="http://www.adamhughesart.com/cvrswz.asp"]cover he did for Wizard magazine[/url] for an example of him making use of expression and facial structure to differentiate some popular female superheroines/”bad girls”.

The “state of female comic book characters in general” IS artist’s like Adam Hughes problem–they’re the ones that define it as such. “Good girl” art is pandering, pure and simple. And there’s nothing particularly expressive about the example you offered. It looks just as plastic as most everything else in the genre. It’s stylized to a fault–there’s no life in it. It’s just rediculously softcore in the worst possible way. Now every female character in a “mainstream” comic book has the body of Jenna Jameson. But then, now that the average reader of Spiderman is a 20 + year old male, that’s the audience they’re after–the same guys who read Maxim, and listen to Howard Stern.

The “state of female comic book characters in general” IS artist’s like Adam Hughes problem–they’re the ones that define it as such. “Good girl” art is pandering, pure and simple. And there’s nothing particularly expressive about the example you offered. It looks just as plastic as most everything else in the genre. It’s stylized to a fault–there’s no life in it. It’s just rediculously softcore in the worst possible way. Now every female character in a “mainstream” comic book has the body of Jenna Jameson. But then, now that the average reader of Spiderman is a 20 + year old male, that’s the audience they’re after–the same guys who read Maxim, and listen to Howard Stern.

Jed Alexander… A great and intelligent comment about the repetitive and tedious work of this overvalued artist

Jed Alexander… A great and intelligent comment about the repetitive and tedious work of this overvalued artist

Wanna know what’s particularly repetitive and tedious? When the pompous and arrogant – who overvalue the worth of their opinions and own talent – brutally dismiss the work of others they happen to dislike. The last 2 comments above are not constructive but rather destructive criticism, which achieves little purpose other than to serve the egos of those who revel in making cutting remarks.

I don’t know the full range of skills and work of Adam Hughes – frankly I’d never heard of him until now. But to criticise somebody for illustrating in the ‘Marvel Way’ is a lot like saying the Disney animators, who must stick to the accepted way of representing Donald Duck, are also ‘repetitive and tedious’.

If you can’t offer constructive criticism, then press your lips together and keep them that way. Or perhaps you would like others to make similarly unpleasant remarks about the work on your own web sites?

Wanna know what’s particularly repetitive and tedious? When the pompous and arrogant – who overvalue the worth of their opinions and own talent – brutally dismiss the work of others they happen to dislike. The last 2 comments above are not constructive but rather destructive criticism, which achieves little purpose other than to serve the egos of those who revel in making cutting remarks.

I don’t know the full range of skills and work of Adam Hughes – frankly I’d never heard of him until now. But to criticise somebody for illustrating in the ‘Marvel Way’ is a lot like saying the Disney animators, who must stick to the accepted way of representing Donald Duck, are also ‘repetitive and tedious’.

If you can’t offer constructive criticism, then press your lips together and keep them that way. Or perhaps you would like others to make similarly unpleasant remarks about the work on your own web sites?

No, Jed’s right. The ultra-repetitive reproductions of glamour girl-style is annoying and it is the artist’s fault. To ensue that comicbook artists are beholden to the same extent as a Disney artist is laughable and not true. They must behold to a character’s traits, but artists are given liberal license with how to represent those traits. Perfect examples are Todd McFarlane’s Batman and (my personal favorite comic artist) Stephen Platt’s series based work (mostly resigned to covers). They took what was an original character and adapted the character’s representation to their artistic tastes.

No offense, Adam Hughes is a good artist and deserves a certain degree of respect. But, to say that what he is doing is unique or somehow revolutionary is, IMO, a slap in the face to artists that try to deviate from (as another poster put it) “the Marvel style” and try their own unique styles.

Whilst watching Adam draw was interesting and enjoyable, his end-product was bland and as formulaic as they come. Again, no disrespect, but I’d like to see something a bit more unique.

No, Jed’s right. The ultra-repetitive reproductions of glamour girl-style is annoying and it is the artist’s fault. To ensue that comicbook artists are beholden to the same extent as a Disney artist is laughable and not true. They must behold to a character’s traits, but artists are given liberal license with how to represent those traits. Perfect examples are Todd McFarlane’s Batman and (my personal favorite comic artist) Stephen Platt’s series based work (mostly resigned to covers). They took what was an original character and adapted the character’s representation to their artistic tastes.

No offense, Adam Hughes is a good artist and deserves a certain degree of respect. But, to say that what he is doing is unique or somehow revolutionary is, IMO, a slap in the face to artists that try to deviate from (as another poster put it) “the Marvel style” and try their own unique styles.

Whilst watching Adam draw was interesting and enjoyable, his end-product was bland and as formulaic as they come. Again, no disrespect, but I’d like to see something a bit more unique.

Nowadays I find the occasional negative comment concerning Adam’s artwork more amusing than offensive because it’s usually to try and generate some sort of reaction without any real insight into Adam’s body of work. In this case, the comments are (largely) based on the one sketch which is hardly indicative of Adam’s body of work, rather a reflection of what is asked or expected from him at a convention by fans. No surprise that they want a sexy depiction of their fave heroine!

I’d rather hear what you think of some of Adam’s printed covers, for example his Wonder Woman covers, a number of which can be viewed here – http://www.justsayah.com/pages/AHpg3.html Check out my personal fave which has amazing design elements – the cover to WW #195 where Diana’s image is reflected off the pilot’s helmet – wonderful perspective.

I’d also like to point out that negative comments are very much in the minority. The 5,500 membership of the Hughes-Fans Yahoo Group does not only include fanboys but such artists as Travis Charest, Casey Jones, etc. all of whom have a very high opinion of Adam’s work. Alex Ross, Frank Cho, Phil Noto and many other artists (who make a living from the industry) have praised Adam’s work. I prefer to listen to the opinions of those whom I believe are far more knowledgeable about the work of one of their peers. I also point to the numerous awards which Adam has won including 3 consecutive Harvey Awards and Eisner Award but what do I know ;)

Royd
Moderator, Hughes-Fans Yahoo Group

Nowadays I find the occasional negative comment concerning Adam’s artwork more amusing than offensive because it’s usually to try and generate some sort of reaction without any real insight into Adam’s body of work. In this case, the comments are (largely) based on the one sketch which is hardly indicative of Adam’s body of work, rather a reflection of what is asked or expected from him at a convention by fans. No surprise that they want a sexy depiction of their fave heroine!

I’d rather hear what you think of some of Adam’s printed covers, for example his Wonder Woman covers, a number of which can be viewed here – http://www.justsayah.com/pages/AHpg3.html Check out my personal fave which has amazing design elements – the cover to WW #195 where Diana’s image is reflected off the pilot’s helmet – wonderful perspective.

I’d also like to point out that negative comments are very much in the minority. The 5,500 membership of the Hughes-Fans Yahoo Group does not only include fanboys but such artists as Travis Charest, Casey Jones, etc. all of whom have a very high opinion of Adam’s work. Alex Ross, Frank Cho, Phil Noto and many other artists (who make a living from the industry) have praised Adam’s work. I prefer to listen to the opinions of those whom I believe are far more knowledgeable about the work of one of their peers. I also point to the numerous awards which Adam has won including 3 consecutive Harvey Awards and Eisner Award but what do I know ;)

Royd
Moderator, Hughes-Fans Yahoo Group

By the way, I proudly include myself as one of the 5,500 fanboys (and fangals) in case anyone was wondering :) Lastly, the link for the Yahoo group in case people are interested in joining the group – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hughes-fans/ Regards,

Royd
Moderator, Hughes-Fans

By the way, I proudly include myself as one of the 5,500 fanboys (and fangals) in case anyone was wondering :) Lastly, the link for the Yahoo group in case people are interested in joining the group – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hughes-fans/ Regards,

Royd
Moderator, Hughes-Fans

I don’t get why people get pissed off when women are drawn with these incredible figures. It’s not like it’s inequality. The men are drawn with amazing figures too.

And superheroes are meant to be an idyllic fantasy, not the rank and file. What is the point of an idyllic fantasy if they look exactly like me? The secret identity of these characters is meant to look ‘normal’ to a certain extent, while the costumed persona is a paragon, precisely because they’re meant to be unrealistic.

It just strikes me that people who can’t stand depictions of fantasy women don’t fully understand the genre in which they appear, talking about perverse voyeurism and the male gaze whilst ignoring the concept of the masculine power fantasy contained within the depictions of male characters in the same genre.

Also, if one were to examine the body of Adam Hughes’ work, it’s quite obvious that he’s quite capable of making the characters he draws very different from one another when he chooses to, whilst also injecting a self-aware humour into the piece.

All that, and he seems capable of drawing anything at all. His backgrounds and colouring are amazing delights to behold, and it’s a shame to say, “He’s a good girl artist, it’s his fault they continue to exist” when you ignore all the other various drawing skills he demonstrates in every cover he does. His detractors always seem to have the exact same inability to see beyond the physical dimensions of women Adam Hughes drawn as those they detract.

I don’t get why people get pissed off when women are drawn with these incredible figures. It’s not like it’s inequality. The men are drawn with amazing figures too.

And superheroes are meant to be an idyllic fantasy, not the rank and file. What is the point of an idyllic fantasy if they look exactly like me? The secret identity of these characters is meant to look ‘normal’ to a certain extent, while the costumed persona is a paragon, precisely because they’re meant to be unrealistic.

It just strikes me that people who can’t stand depictions of fantasy women don’t fully understand the genre in which they appear, talking about perverse voyeurism and the male gaze whilst ignoring the concept of the masculine power fantasy contained within the depictions of male characters in the same genre.

Also, if one were to examine the body of Adam Hughes’ work, it’s quite obvious that he’s quite capable of making the characters he draws very different from one another when he chooses to, whilst also injecting a self-aware humour into the piece.

All that, and he seems capable of drawing anything at all. His backgrounds and colouring are amazing delights to behold, and it’s a shame to say, “He’s a good girl artist, it’s his fault they continue to exist” when you ignore all the other various drawing skills he demonstrates in every cover he does. His detractors always seem to have the exact same inability to see beyond the physical dimensions of women Adam Hughes drawn as those they detract.