Martinex1: We have another double-header for you today with a topic that straddles both
Panel Discussion and
The Brave or the Bold. Our headliners today are John Byrne and George Perez, obviously two of the most prolific and outstanding artists of our favored era. A couple of weeks ago in a comment section I asked a question regarding the work of these artists on a particular image from
Avengers #181, and it sparked an idea. Let's compare and contrast these greats. Who was the better cover artist, group artist, and all-around story teller?
I assume it will be difficult to decide so I've supplied a number of pieces below with George Perez' work on the left and John Byrne's art on the right. Their careers followed similar patterns and they often worked on the same books. Sometimes they traded off penciling covers from issue to issue as in
Avengers, Marvel Two-In-One, and even the
Uncanny X-Men. Terry Austin, a great artist in his own right, inked both on occasion. They worked with many other famous inkers as well like Sinnott, Giacoia, and Thangal.
Both artists evolved over time. It should be fun today contrasting the work and we will enjoy hearing your comments as we discuss the men, the art, and the ties to the Bronze Age! Cheers!
 |
| George Perez |
 |
| John Byrne |
17 comments:
OK I'll kick things off with a couple of general observations.
That is - in my view - Perez was better with team books and splash pages, and Byrne was better (at his peak) with solo books and anatomy.
And the second, is that in my view, Byrne's style owed more to the past (especially Neal Adams) and Perez gave more stylistically to the future (for instance, through Jim Lee)
But that is merely scratching the surface of two wonderful artists and the gallery Marti has put together.
Sheesh... Do we have to choose?
A couple of thoughts:
I think for the overall body of work, I'd choose Perez's Bronze Age Avengers over Byrne's (and anyone else's Avengers, with the exception of John Buscema's output over four years beginning with Avengers #41 -- the gold standard for the book).
Byrne's (with Austin) X-Men work may be the finest overall work of the era. At times stunning.
Crisis on Infinite Earths was sweeping, and some say unnecessarily so. That being said, Perez never let me down as the story gained momentum and worked through to its conclusion (error-filled for the future as it may have been).
Byrne's Superman - it was obvious that he was pouring everything he had into Man of Steel and the first few issues of the ongoing. Compare the depth of his characters, their mass and movement, with his latter issues on his Fantastic Four run. Really, no comparison. He really pushed himself on Superman.
Perez's Wonder Woman may be some of his best work, and I'm not sure how many people have seen it. DC can call WW a member of their "Trinity" all they want, but let's face it - I'm guessing in the years prior to Perez taking over the book not too many folks were reading it. If you've never seen it yourself, do a personal favor and snag one of the early trades. Your eyes will thank you.
A parting thought - I'd like to have seen Byrne's take on the JLA-Avengers mini-series that had been in the works for all those years before seeing the light of day. It was a dream project for Perez and he didn't disappoint visually with the finished project. I think Byrne would have risen to the occasion as well.
Doug
I love the artwork of both Byrne and Perez, and both had a great influence on me as a kid. But my favorite artist has been (and probably always will be) John Byrne. There's just something about his art that has always been sort of magical to me.
John Byrne is the first artist I ever knew by name, because I used to not even read the credits when I was really young. But then I started to notice that there were certain books that I was drawn to more than others, so I started checking the credits and saw that the same guy was drawing all the stuff that I really loved. And that was "John Byrne" whose last name I used to mispronounce (until I was like 11 or 12) as "By-ner".
I purged a lot of my collection back in the early 90's, but I ended up reacquiring everything that John Byrne did as either single comics or in TPB collections. I think I now pretty much have just about all his Marvel and DC stuff from the Bronze-Age (and beyond).
Man, Perez vs. Byrne. That's like asking if you want a plate of warm chocolate chip cookies, or a plate of warm fudgy brownies. I can't choose!
Doug- I'd agree with your take on Avengers. Loved Byrne's work, but Perez did more issues, and what issues they were. Now as to the Fantastic Four, I'd definitely give the nod to Byrne. Perez did beautiful work on the book, but not to the extent that JB did.
Colin- and I'd agree with you regarding Perez' skill with groups. It's unbelievable how much he could cram in a panel.
Which brings me to another thought. As to overall impressions of the two: if forced at knifepoint to make a choice, I'd probably go with Byrne. The only (very)minor complaint I have with Perez is that sometimes his work looks a bit cramped. Which is not surprising, as much action as he can depict in a single page. Perez has incredible design skill, beautiful detail, and fine composition.
As for Byrne, his backgrounds and cityscapes are staggering. His figures fluid and pleasing to the eye. He can compose a scene like a Renaissance Master. If forced, again, to think of a negative- it might be that his later work seemed a bit looser, less finessed.
At any rate, I can spend all day looking at those images you posted, Marti. Many thanks!
In the 2nd or 3rd issue of the Perez/Busiek Avengers reboot- in that complicated arc with everyone suddenly in an alternate-universe Camelot or something- there's a brief scene with Morgan Le Fay in her castle tower, explaining her goals to. . . someone. (Working ENTIRELY from memory here. . . ) One panel has her talking away, a window behind her, casually holding an apple in her hand. Next panel, as she continues speaking, is an exterior shot, w/ her sitting in the window, looking out. The apple has a bite out of it, and her cheek is obviously full of that bite of apple. Her expression is-- wistful, not malevolent at all.
And- bam- in that brief visual instant, we are suddenly aware of the fact that Morgan is. . . well, she's a human being. Crazy, ruthless, megalomaniacal- sure- but no longer a paint-by-numbers cardboard villain.
And as esoteric and non-technical as that may be, it's the reason my final nod is gonna go to George Perez. It's a completely visual choice, brilliant in its simplicity, that has a surprising impact on how we view that character in that moment. This guy loves the characters that he draws-- he seems to have an empathetic connection to them, which for me has always come through his pencil and expressed itself directly onto the page.
Well heck-- and he just seems to be an awfully lot nicer of a fella, too. Love him in interviews, whereas JB tends to make me grit my teeth an awful lot of the time. Ahhhh sure, I'm not above preferring an artist because I like him HIMSELF better-- no prob! Heh.
HB
Well, gents (and any female readers out there...), I have a slight bias against both artists, solely due to my early Bronze Age entry, and I was pretty much moving away from my active collecting when they started drawing our mags. So please base any of my comments simply on my collecting timeframe, rather than any in-depth analysis.
I will say both have great strengths, and I actually lean more towards Perez with some drawbacks..
I really enjoy the clean way Perez draws faces, I didn't appreciate it as much in Marvel mags, but his Titans were simply fantastic. If any, my complaint against Perez is his much-heralded level of detail.
In NTT, it's breathtaking, but in other mags, not so much. Why..? I've gone back to the likes of Silver Age Kirby and Smith (yes, I know, mimicking Kirby and Steranko..), and sometime having figures without backgrounds in some action sequences can be quite effective, more so than having all the busyness behind the figures, it allows readers to focus on the forefront figures than everything behind 'em. Again IMHO, it works for me in NTT and some Avengers mags, AFTER Perez got his confidence going and a proper inker (Avengers 161, anyone..? Great Perez work). His early Avengers issues were a bit weak.
As for Byrne, I liked him in his early Avengers issues, but by the time of his last year on FF and moving to DC, I felt a bit saturated and dulled with his style. Great facial styles, but his action sequences weren't all that memorable.
In all actuality, in the vein or style of these two artists, I'd actually prefer Jim Starlin to either of them, for Marvel work. His work on Mar-Vell (especially on 'The Death of Captain Mar-Vell') was stellar, and I always liked Starlin on the FF and drawing Ben Grimm (case in point, my favorite Marvel Feature 11, 'Nuff Said).
As for drawing ol' Benjy (which is typically a litmus test on a good Marvel artist....), I prefer Perez to Byrne, but again, I'd take Starlin over either in a heartbeat.
Great posting! Thank you for the pix! Most enjoyable seeing them!
Well, I have no opinion. I had very minimal exposure to either artist since I'd pretty much stopped reading comics full time around 1975. The very occasional comic I'd purchase later... I just remember being quite impressed by both.
Hard to chose as I have loved both these artist's works for a long time. There are so many comics in the past where their artwork has jumped off the page. My only complaint on either of them is I think their artwork in the past was better before they changed their styles. Byrne in particular. If you compare his work back in the late 70's - early 80's to his later stuff, it doesn't compare. His early work jumped off the page and had real depth to it. Later his work became more two dimensional and it seemed like he was getting lazy somewhat. When inked his own work.....ugh. I think Perez has held up much better thru the years and taking into consideration his issues with his eyesight, I have to give the nod to Perez.
I like both generally, but I'd probably pick Perez over Byrne. For me, New Teen Titans is enough to give Perez the edge, never mind all the other great stuff he did. I haven't checked out Perez's (or Byrne's for that matter) post-Crisis Wonder Woman, but it's on my list. I think they both did well on Avengers, though Byrne has the edge for FF and X-Men, obviously. I haven't read any of Byrne's Superman stuff aside from Man of Steel, so I can't really comment on it.
One thing that bugged me a bit about Byrne as a writer is his tendency to make wholesale changes to characters without regard to continuity. Sometimes it works (She-Hulk, Namor, Superman); other times, not so much (Spider-Man: Chapter One, Doom Patrol, Vision in WCA).
To those of you used to looking at the post at 6:00 AM CST sharp, I apologize for the delay this morning. I forgot to set the post start time. Thanks for your patience.
I lean toward John Byrne - though like others this choice is very close for me.
I do appreciate George Perez' desire to make each character's face and body type different. Just take a look at Raven, Koriand'r, and Terra in the black and white example.
I feel that both artists excel when they are not entirely on their own. I think Perez tends to over fill his panels to the point of distraction (as pointed out earlier). And Byrne benefits from inkers like Austin, Rubenstein, and others. He is so prolific that it may help to slow him down or not have him handle inking also
I like both better in the 80s and I often wonder if the coloring technique from the past doesn't actually help both. Modern coloring on their work doesn't look right to me.
I like Perez better on covers. But I do notice some quirks in interior layout for Perez that I find a little distracting. In general though, it is just my liking for more clarity and simplicity to figures that I think Byrne excels at. Both are in my top three artist list- sometimes interchangeably -at all times.
I have always admired the way Byrne could make a character actually look as if he/she was speaking. A far cry from how most artists of the Bronze Age handled the depiction of the movement of a person's mouth and/or lips.
Perez really sought to individualize the look of each Avenger during his run with Kurt Busiek. Some were hits (Wanda, Vizh), some were not as positive (Thor - specifically his nose). But I appreciated the effort.
Doug
Man, choosing between these two is like choosing between your two favourite ice cream flavours! I love both of them.
Byrne's later stuff doesn't look as good, although I loved his X-men run with Terry Austin. Perez was great on Avengers and Teen Titans.
- Mike 'John Buscema or Neal Adams?'from Trinidad & Tobago.
Let me jump in late as usual on this. George Perez will always have my undying admiration for making the Avengers great again after the debacle called "Heroes Reborn". The Avengers by Kurt Busiek and Perez was the last time I was breathless between regular issues of a comic book. That's been nearly twenty years ago now (sigh) and things have not improved. Grand stuff.
For John Byrne, it's the Fantastic Four. It's my favorite of his many works (Rog-2000 aside) and he made that comic exciting and vital after too many years of it just getting along okay.
Both of these guys have had important awesome runs. I pick Perez as my ultimate favorite of the two simply for the heroic way he draws so many characters so darn well. Amazing!
Rip Off
Hey all. I was prompted to respond by some of the comments about Byrne's later work; I spent part of the long holiday weekend doing some comfort reading (the only kind I've done since January) which included a re-read of Byrne's various Star Trek minis for IDW (Romulans: Pawns of War, Crew, Assignment Earth and McCoy Frontier Doctor, all done from 2008 to 2010) which really showcase that the man hasn't lost his storytelling touch - by which I mean both art and writing. Highly recommended if you like Byrne and/or Trek (esp. the original series). And I guess this comment basically indicates where I come down on the Perez/Byrne choice - although I have to say that if the choice were between Perez and pretty much any other artist (with the possible exception of Simonson), I'd go with Perez.
Edo- hey, good to hear from you! Thanks for the info on Byrne's more recent work; I'll have to give it a look. And incidentally, Walt Simonson would be pretty high on my list as well...
I love them both, but Byrne gets the nod from me. Perez did some great work on the Avengers, but he never had a run at Marvel like Byrne did on FF.
Having been blessed to get to meet and chat with both artists, I may have some bias. Both are great artists. Period. Both can write/plot. My art was more influenced by Byrne's style. His detail in single characters is amazing. Perez, is amazing withe groups...the more the merrier!!
Alot of the changes both have gone thru are due to who's inking. Austin makes everyone look better. Tanghal was very suited to Perez, but not so on others. That, having been said, I think both benefit from outside inkers than self-inking. The other hand sees things the artist may not.
Great article!!! Thanks!!
Post a Comment