RD Francis (2:14 PM on Mon Dec 3, 2007)

Sadly enough, when I saw the miniaturized version of the Liefeld image, I actually said to myself, "What's a Byrne image doing on this story?" Although, the story it brought to mind was actually something from DC's LEGENDS, I think - the bit where they have a StarBrand parody take on GL (with actual Byrne art).

RD Francis

Michael Davis (2:40 PM on Mon Dec 3, 2007)

Here's my problem with all this stuff, NO Rob is not the greatest artist who ever walked the earth. But Rob was a part of something that very few people can claim. He and the other Image guys changed the industry and were the first real 'pop' stars to come out of comics. I think a lot of the 'hate Rob' glee that comes from people who are just plain jealous. By the way-those 'drawing' that piss so many people off SOLD millions so who's the idiot Rob for drawing that way or the people who payed for it? Before you give me the 'comics are art' speech let me enlighten you-art is in the eye of the beholder and if you judge it just by what someone would pay for a piece (like the millions of dollars paid for a Picasso) the Rob is one of the greatest artists ever.

RD Francis (7:13 PM on Mon Dec 3, 2007)

OK, now I've actually read the article.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't think Liefeld is generally a very good artist. As Michael says, he's been a *successful* artist, but that doesn't make some of his illustrations painfully uncomfortable to look at.

That said:

a) Rob is hardly the only artist to draw women in anatomically impossible poses (or simply with impossible anatomy).

b) One can make an argument that certain features (the way he deals with feet) are simply Rob's style. I mean, where's the website with fifteen pictures complaining about how Jack Kirby couldn't draw normal fingers and always made the square at the ends?

c) The most significant (to me, at least) complaints about Rob's artwork are those regarding how well the artwork tells the story. That, after all, is the goal of art in comics. And, as I recall, that was one of the things long-time fans were complaining about in the nineties. And, as I look at these pictures, Rob's work doesn't seem to be the worst of the lot as far as that goes. Many of the "hotter" artists of the nineties would seemingly produce at least 50% of their pages with the idea of selling the original art. That lead to a preponderance of splash pages with characters posing for pin-ups. Yes, there are some badly posed figures in these examples; but even many of those look like they adequately serve the story.

d) I think very few people (possibly including Rob himself) would be willing to say that Rob writes well, or that he works well as the primary story plotter. Complaints about the writing quality are a completely different topic, and shouldn't be mixed in with complaints about his art.

e) How could he possibly have skipped CAPTAIN AMERICA (Heroes Reborn version) #1? I think that's the issue I'm thinking of - the one where we have scenes where Steve Rogers appears to be roughly 9 feet tall, and (elsewhere) to have a 90-inch chest?

f) Are all the FF shots coming from Onslaught: Reborn? If so, I may actually take a look at that; those are some of the shots where the complaints don't really even seem valid to me (OK, except for the fact that it really does look like that gun just happens to be floating next to Franklin's hand on the last image). I'd avoided it on general principles, as I don't normally tolerate Rob's art, but if these are the worst images from the mini-series, it might actually be readable. Of course, that's up to Jeph Loeb as well....

RD Francis

Luigi Novi (8:21 PM on Mon Dec 3, 2007)

As much as I and my classmates detested Rob's artwork when we were in art school (this was at the height of his fame in the early 90's), I think the article overstates its case. Looking to art from your favorite creators for inspiration, and in some cases, to figure out to how to do a certain pose or composition, is COMMONPLACE. Singling out Liefeld is stupid. My friend Chris Batista, who got his big break when we overlapped at the School of Visual Arts, often had issues of books by Jose Luis Garcia Lopez or Michael Golden when penciling pages at SVA's media center. He didn't necessarily copy things as often as Liefeld did, but the article implies that the top panel is "not Rob's art". Of course it is. It's simply rendered "after" a previous artist. As for the comment about him not giving "credit", it's not commonplace to give such credit in-panel, where it might be seen and distract from the art. By contrast, it is common on COVERS, and when Liefeld drew the cover of the New Mutants issue where Sunspot leaves, he did INDEED credit Byrne, since he modeled it after the cover of Uncanny X-Men #138, when Cyclops left after Phoenix's death, signing it "Liefeld After Byrne".

Liefeld may have a lot to be criticized for, but it sometimes it becomes so easy to lob criticism at such public figures that some people lose perspective, and become self-righteous in the way they lose all sense of proportion when doing so.

Alan Coil (9:31 PM on Mon Dec 3, 2007)

20 years later and his art hasn't improved one bit. That's one of the biggest reasons people hate his work. Youthful inadequacies can be forgiven. Being the same inept guy as 20 years ago is not so forgivable. If he were getting older, or perpetually ill, people would forgive his lack of improvement, or even decline in skills.

Anonymous (1:51 PM on Mon Dec 3, 2007)

I distinctly remember X-Force #1 being full of page layouts stolen straight from an issue of New Teen Titans (direct market #1, maybe?).

Kneon Transitt (6:41 AM on Tue Dec 4, 2007)

Liefeld got me buying superhero books. He's certainly not the greatest artist that ever lived (not by a, uh, Longshot) but there's no denying his stuff hit the right chords with the kids back in the day. I don't think a Levi's commercial was the sole reason his books sold as well as they did.

'Sides, anybody that can make THAT much money in comics needs to be given a medal. Regardless of quality. Seriously. Most of today's creators can only wish their books sold like Rob's.

Anonymous (9:54 AM on Tue Dec 4, 2007)

I remember many years ago a comic store owner showing me several pages from Japanese anime comic books side-by-side with selected Liefeld drawings. He's truly an amazing visual plagirist.

Steve Atkins (7:31 PM on Sun Dec 9, 2007)

My main problems with Rob Liefeld are as follows:

1) He's lazy and sloppy with his artwork. The panels in the article that showed Liefeld's after-thought of drawing a gun in someone's hand that clearly wasn't holding a gun in the first place show this quite blatantly. I have noticed that this is not a couple of islolated incidents...it seems to be Liefeld's habit.

2) He doesn't keep his deadlines/promises. The internet is filled with stories (both true and false-but-believed) about his inability to deliver to the fanbase AND the publishers he makes deals with.

3) His artwork has not developed beyond its initial "doodling fanboy stage." That combined with his aforementioned laziness has prevented me from buying anything that he has/had put out.

4) He is an ass. This is not based on any heresay or rumor. This is not based on any desire on my part to join the I-HATE-ROB-LIEFELD-SOCIETY.

This is based on the conversation I had with him once at a convention. I met him, spoke with him, and expeienced what he was like personally and in person.

I don't like him.

By contrast, I met Todd McFarlane later during the exact same set of circumstances and I found the meeting to be a pleasant experience. The conversation was interesting, but brief (more brief than with Liefeld, actually).

The funny thing is....I am not particularly a fan of Todd McFarlane, either. I like SOME of his work, but his name alone was never enough to sell me on any particular book. He was, however, a really nice guy.

Anonymous (11:29 PM on Mon Jan 7, 2008)

In response to Luigi's comment: I appreciate the concept that artists look to other artists for inspiration. No one lives in a vacuum. However, there is a difference between art referencing and art copying. Liefeld is guilty of the latter, which, to me, demeans him as an artist and a person. His propensity to steal art from his colleagues reflects negatively on his moral character, as well as his professional standards. That, and the fact that he has consistently delivered late, unpolished work leads me to conclude that all criticism of him presented so far is accurate and justified.

So, basically, he and Greg Land are tools.

Steven (11:48 AM on Mon Mar 31, 2008)

I posted the link on Rob's official site and got banned from ever using his forum again. That says a lot about him. Instead of coming out and replying to the mail he just banned me. The guy is as overrated as Britney Spears. Sure, his books sold millions, but has anyone really sat down and asked themselves "why?". There was a collectors boom back then and he cashed in on it. And that is all he did. He can't write a comic to save his life. His art really stinks. And he isn't man enough to stand up for himself when someone is taking him on.
The guy is an ass...
and he has never seen a woman before in his life.
End of story

Anonymous (11:07 PM on Mon Apr 21, 2008)

That seems unlikely, given the amount of women on Earth. Maybe he suffers from the same short-term memory loss that goldfish do, and after carefully studying anatomical proportions, quickly forgets them and draws deformed piles of muscle posing as humans with a shit-ton of cross-hatching.

Anonymous (11:58 AM on Mon May 5, 2008)

I think Liefeld gets a raw deal because of the fact he was a success very early on in his career without paying his "dues". Everything else is sour grapes. People want to complain about his artistic choice of style or proportions or what have you for the sole reason to assure themselves that their time in comics will come. He has become this galvanizing rod that attracts wannabe artists to demean his work to put over their own. There is no such thing as a Great artist or a Bad artist. I enjoy Liefeld's work for the style and dynamic enthusiasm that I don't see in some of your more favorite artists. If Liefeld is the worst, who constitues as great? John Cassady with his 3 feet long necks? Bryan Hitch..(or Alan Davis in disguise)? How about Steve Epting and the faces that looked like they were just dug out of a mortuary?

Russ Rogers (2:32 PM on Mon May 5, 2008)

I think some of the criticism of Rob Liefeld's art is a criticism of style. Yes, Liefeld draws MASSIVE male figures with HUGE guns and character after character has a costume with tons of pouches and a backpack. His females have MASSIVE TITS and teeny-tiny, corseted waists. The anatomy is preposterous. His crosshatching and shadows appear random and arbitrary. But his style is distinctive. There is something that screams, "This is a ROB LIEFELD drawing!" I think his male and female bodies are caricatures, not characterizations. But Liefeld isn't that interested in portraying what is plausible or possible. His heroes look like Megaton Man or the Tick, without any sense of comic irony. But that's OK. It's his style. He has made his own set of clichés. It's a very distinctive style. And here's where it's hard to argue about it. It sells!

You can say "They Might Be Giants" are a smarter, more musical, creative, clever, insightful, emotional, in short a more talented and objectively BETTER band than "Menudo", "New Kids on the Block" or the "Back Street Boys." But ... who has sold more records? In the one case, someone is trying to make art. In the other case, someone is trying to make commerce. And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with trying to sell to an audience. Bubble-gum pop is kitsch and cool.

Art is not a zero sum game. Just because the Back Street Boys sell a TON of albums, that doesn't make They Might Be Giants sell less.

At one time the Beatles were as much of a bubble-gum band as any other boy band, but after they conquered Pop they went on to transcend and become the most influential musical presence in the 20th Century. (Yeah, I said it. And I'm will to stand behind that hyperbole!) I think that without the massive early commercial success, the Beatles wouldn't have had the platform to create the truly experimental, avant garde and influential works that came later.

It was the commercial success of Daredevil that gave Frank Miller the platform to create the Dark Knight stuff and Sin City. Miller went on and forged a whole new set of clichés. Lots of whores with swastikas.

Now, you might criticize Liefeld for not trying to use his platform of success to blaze new trails. You might say that he hasn't used his success to expand the art form. Maybe he doesn't want to do that. Maybe he's not capable of that. Does it matter? Does he have to?

I went to the list of the 40 Worst Rob Liefeld Drawings. I was disturbed by the authors take on #22: "I will bet money that this picture was traced from child pornography. I have never seen a drawing of lips make me feel as creepy as looking at this does."

Liefeld's drawing doesn't remind me of child pornography. To suggest that Liefeld watches child porn and then TRACES it. That's just TOO defamatory to be anywhere near tasteful. Was the author making a joke? Joking about child pornography doesn't seem very funny. I was seriously put off by this.

#19 is a comentary on a splash page featuring the Thing and the Human torch. The author seems to find this image sexual too: "Now for a tasteful splash page of the Human Torch fucking The Thing missionary-style! Splash page? More like SLASH page, am I right!

"Note the Torch’s full, supple buttocks. If this isn’t a drawing of a naked guy on fire anally violating a semi-nude grotesquery in midair I don’t know comic books! The Thing’s blow-up-doll mouth is also kind of disturbing, as is the fact that he kinda looks like he’s pretty into it. Never would have figured Ben Grimm to be a bottom, but there you have it.

"At least they’re face-to-face, so you know this ain’t just some cheap fuck; there’s some passion involved at least. Work those nipples, Johnny! Work them good!"

I didn't find this picture erotic or homo-erotic. And again, this kind of commentary is crass, sophomoric, UNfunny and far STUPIDER than anything he is trying to criticize in Rob Liefeld's art. If there is an argument to be made, if you want to score points in a debate, this AIN'T the way to do it.

Being critical is fine, if you have something constructive in your criticism. But pulling out random panels and finding that they coincidentally remind the author of pedophilia or homo-eroticism says MORE about the author than the art itself. It's just not fair commentary. And again, it's NOT funny. It's just crude and distracting.

I think what irks people isn't that Rob Liefeld's art is bad. It's that they see it as bad AND outselling what they think is better art. Yeah, Steve Rude is a WAY better artist than Rob Liefeld. Hell, so is Terry Beatty. Both deserve to have boatloads more success and money than they have. But that's not Liefeld's fault. The tastes of the public are fickle and sometimes shallow. There is a tendency for the lowest common denominator to receive the highest reward. Sex and Violence sell. Gross exaggerations of sex and violence sell even better. Oh well. Should we blame the artist? Should we blame the ignorant masses? Should we blame the "corporate machine" that seems to be more interested in making money than elevating and enlightening the human condition?

Nah. That's just the way it is. That would be like shouting at the wind for blowing. That would be like blaming tires for being round. The best we can do is read what we like, think about WHY we like it and WHAT we like about it, and then, PROMOTE what we DO like. Being negative is easy. Finding out what you like and promoting that is harder, but it's a far more worthy goal!

Larz (8:13 PM on Mon May 19, 2008)

A LOT of artists SUCK in my opinion. Gene Colon was always a let down for me (if I bought a back issue and opened it to find out he was the artist I would have just boxed it)... Sal Buscema "phoned in" a lot of really well-written Hulk issues, Bill Siekewicz (how the hell do you spell that guys name?) ruined the NEW MUTANTS for me way back in the day and basically scared me away from comics. Back in the eighties I loved John Byrne, but now his art looks like he's drawing with an El Marko. Comic art is just a reflection of what's acceptable by the fans, and I'm sure when Iron Man #1 came out with Gene's ball point "everyone-looks-like-a-scared-asian" style, it might have been refreshing, but now looks to me like someone dipped kitty's paws in ink and let him scratch all over the paper. Good for Rob in making a living probably doing what he did best, if he had drawn The X-Men back in 1985 I probably would have kept reading it. In closing Barry Windsor Smith is the biggest asshole I've ever worked for and Bob Layton is one of the most underrated comic talents ever. Now thee was a guy who had proportions and metal DOWN... yet never seemed to have reached the George Perez status he deserved. Russ made a good call with Steve Rude, goddamn give that guy Mighty Avengers or New Avengers already!

Anonymous (2:05 PM on Tue Nov 25, 2008)

I like how Rob's only changes were to hide the character's feet and added a bunch of unnecessary lines.

Tiffany (11:07 AM on Fri Feb 27, 2009)

While I do not read comics as much as the next guy, I do draw, and I have taken art. Not that it says much, but I've seen a lot of stuff, a lot of fads, and a lot of styles. Stuff drawn by DiVinci is by far more detailed and realistic than anything done by Jackson Pollock, but depending on what circle of art critics you are talking to they are both equally great, and both revolutionized the art scene when they hit it.
After looking over Rob's work, one can see that a lot of what people don't like about him involves just his style, which is purely subjective. Some of the comments too about his work were just plain unfair and un-constructive. Anybody can make a child-porn refrence about anything. Doesn't make it valid or funny.

What really gets me about a glance at this guy's stuff however is the half-assed way a lot of these things have been drawn. The backgrounds are left out in favor of making his characters stand out more- fine, the character is the focal point, but when I can't even tell if his characters are supposed to be in the same room because the backgrounds are inconsistent, well...that just seems to show me he didn't care enough to finish his work. Place where lines don't meet up, clearly added-in-later details. It speaks of a man who wanted to get his stuff out of his office as soon as possible. You guys are telling me he can't keep a deadline? It certainly doesn't show in his work.

Anonymous (8:42 PM on Mon Mar 2, 2009)

As Tiffany just stated, it really is the sloppiness factor that really stands out most to my eye. I am completely fine with toying with anatomy and perspective for dramatic effect, but it does bother me when something looks tacked on after the fact, a common feature of Rob Liefeld drawings. By contrast, Jack Davis prefers working in caricature, and his drawings if anything suffer from an overabundance of detail, yet one of his drawings will typically feature LESS glaringly obvious tacked in details than a given Liefeld work. With Liefeld I don't even get the sense that the guy gives a crap sometimes.

Anonymous (1:42 PM on Wed Aug 12, 2009)

my favorite thing about this swipe is, that even though the original Byrne piece has feet, Liefeld managed to lengthen Sunfire's legs just long enough so that they were off-panel in his version.

jin kim (7:25 PM on Fri Sep 11, 2009)

I never really paid close attention to the Image craze, just remember that commercial with spike lee that cast Liefeld as some sort of autodidact god-child... And his arrogant remark that he could draw an egg and people would line up to buy it. Now that I've taken a closer look, I am appalled by the complete absence of anything that resembles artistic merit in his work.

keeping in mind that there is a production process involved that usually involves an inker and a colorist, I would think at some point someone would say something about Liefeld's intensely problematic lack of basic illustrative competence. I can't believe people actually inked and colored his less than child-like breakdowns... never mind that people actually paid money for it.

My biggest problem with Liefeld and secondarily guys like Mcfarland and Lee... they contributed greatly to taking all the artistic merit out of the creation and enjoyment of comics. They were definitely the Britney Spears of comics, Liefeld the most glaring example.

More, I don't think you can compare Kirby's or Ditko's artistic idiosyncrasies with a complete lack of ability. Those guys were pioneers. And yes, perhaps a hand or arm doesn't really look the way Kirby or Ditko drew them, but these were stylistic vehicles, not an inherent inability to draw a hand as a hand really looks. Liefeld simply cannot draw a hand...or an egg for that matter.

His later work does not reflect any significant improvement, either. He defies the basic principle that we all improve at anything we do from repetition and practice.

Anonymous (5:12 PM on Sat Sep 19, 2009)

The man is a hack, pure and simple, with no artistic training.
He is also a thief:
http://julien-gautier.club.fr/rob_copie.jpg