Leonieblog

In the 90's, I thought painted comics were cool. However, I think around they became a bit of a gimmick, so a lot of rubbish was being produced which put me off them. Some people can really do painted comics, like George Pratt or the guy that does Blacksad. But then there's the Alex Ross stuff. Don't get me wrong, the guy can paint and when he first started doing photo-realistic superheroes it was a neat idea. But, that doesn't make him a good comic artist. He's a great illustrator, but I've yet to read a great comic by him. I read an interview with Scott Hampton the other day that really put things into perspective for me. He made some really interesting points about painting, illustration and comics. He also had a lot of the same problems that I've been running into lately. For example, paint alone can lose the representational qualities of a line drawing, making the viewer relate to it in a different way. Reconciling the painted image and line work can be difficult. Scott has found a way to use it when he needs to change the pace of the story. This was a similar conclusion to the one I was beginning to reach, which is very reassuring. Also, he talked about how there is still lots to explore in terms of painted comics. He talked about the bad points of painting and how it can be an unsuitable medium and I found myself thinking, "yeah, but if you did it this way then it would work..." and by the end of it I'd talked myself into doing a painted comic.
Lucky I've already started one.