Tintin

[LimpingFish]

Herge recieves mad respect by any comic artist (myself included) because he invented half of the visual lexicon we use when we make comics. I'm not kidding here. Like cinematography in cinema, comics have their own visual language, half of which is the result of Herge's work. We all love him and owe him much.
He's not flashy like Moebius, but he's equally important.

Herge is no Will Eisner. I always found Herge's style quite stiff and mannered. But then, I also laugh at people who say that Burne Hogarth offers anything other than teaching people how to draw dynamic poses of store window mannequins.

In fact, I can think of a number of artists I would rate above Herge. Alex Toth, Jordi Bernet, Steve Ditko, and Hugo Pratt, to name a few.

Eisner's 1946-49 run on The Spirit (those that weren't ghosted for him by other artists) will teach any aspiring comicbook artist the basics of good sequential story-telling. He's not the be all and end all, but during that period the quality of some of his work was astounding.

I can take or leave Tintin.

[Helm]

When you rate people, do you mean according to your preference on who is a better storyteller, or acording to historical significance to the medium? Because I don't find Herge or Tintin my cup of tea either, but that doesn't stop me from giving him due credit for his influence on the lexicon of the medium.

He's at least equally important as Will Eisner, and he'd probably tell you the same were he alive and magically posting on the AGS forum.

[LimpingFish]

My indifference to Herge is similar to my indifference to Moebius. I feel that a lot of their work is simply overrated, although they may have initially defined a set of storytelling "rules" that still influence today. Moebius in particular has produced a lot of work that, without his name on it, would be forgotten.

Don't get me wrong, Will Eisner's "worthy" graphic novels don't appeal to me in the slightest, and the praise they receive is, in my opinion, misplaced. So this isn't a European bias.

I'm not a fan of Tintin, no, but I'm also not a fan of Little Nemo, yet I would take Winsor McKay over Herge. Or Tove Jansson over Albert Uderzo.

Maybe personal preference plays a part, maybe I favour a certain style over another.

I also rate Carl Barks lower than a lot of people do. George Herriman, on the other hand, appeals to me greatly. So maybe it is personal preference.

Like I said, I favour Will Eisner's contribution over Herge's to the art of comicbook storytelling; his experiments with light and shadow, perspective and POV, but I'm not stating it as fact. It's simply my opinion.

Frankly if you gave an artist work by Jack Kirby at the pinnacle of his ability, they would need little else to learn the art of dynamic comicbook storytelling. It would only suit them to a certain type of storytelling, sure, but it would be one of the definitive examples of said style. Or Wally Woods' work on Thunder Agents. Or Steve Ditko's work on Spiderman.

Or give them Hugo Pratt's Corto Maltese, Moebius's Blueberry, or Jordi Bernet's Torpedo as examples of a "european" style. Although both Pratt and Bernet would owe just as much to Eisner as to Herge, in my opinion.

My experience of Herge is limited to Tintin (and to a much lesser extent Quick and Flupke), and mostly to the period of 1950 onwards, and so my opinion itself may also be limited.

I just seems to me that once Tintan was fully developed, the artistic quality, though excellent, became repetitive in it's execution, leaving me with the impression that the later Tintin books are fairly interchangable.

[Tuomas]

Surely, I mean, if I understood correctly, you suggest that the art stays modererate. But to my eye it's always pleasant, as in not irritating. There are comics you just can't read because they're awfully drawn, and then there are the ones that you can read because they're short. Well, Tintin was never short, but I always liked the way it hit my eye, you know, nothing too special, but yet within the proportions, and the most important, the characters look the same from beginning to the end. And I can't really say his storytelling isn't excellent, I mean, a man that can write such a popular comic must be good. And I like the way he writes the stories long rather than ever finding only simple solutions to puzzles. That's why Tintin'd make a great adventure game.

[LimpingFish]

No, I just mean that there seems to be a lack of diversity in how Herge constructed those later albums. His graphic storytelling (ie. how he constructed the flow of his art, panel to panel, how he constucted an action sequence across a number of pages, etc) seemed to become more and more rigid in layout, something which I also find happened in the later Asterix books.

As I said, Herge was a fine artist and draughtsman, but as time went on he seemed less willing to experiment with the construction of the Tintin stories. Which I can understand. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, etc.

But it's possible that the overall impact of his graphic visualization, and thus his ability to convey story through pictures in an interesting manner, is lessened by it's apparent rigid conformity to his pre-defined storytelling style.

Again, this is all just opinion.

[Helm]

But it's possible that the overall impact of his graphic visualization, and thus his ability to convey story through pictures in an interesting manner, is lessened by it's apparent rigid conformity to his pre-defined storytelling style.

Again, this is all just opinion.

I understand where you're coming from and I see the rigidity, and Herge is not my favourite, but his influence on how comics are made cannot be understated. Try not to confuse the two. I really don't like the Beatles either, but to say they didn't influence popular music would be insane.

[LimpingFish]

But I wasn't really understating his importance, I was just weighing it against others. And also introducing the point that maybe it isn't the work itself that defines his importance, but rather the initial ground rules that he, among others, contributed to the early life of the medium.

Maybe Herge's technical influence outweighs the longevity of his creative merit.

So although his influence is still felt, his body of work is creatively...irrelevant? Of course, I could say the same about anybody else who has been mentioned in this thread.

Which brings us back to personal preference and how we perceive how one artist's work has more creative appeal to the reader (singular) than another's.

And also exposes us to the risk of sucking all the fun out of reading comicbooks.

[Helm]

This happens a lot with originators in artwork. The followers perfect the techniques that are applied rudimentary let's say, by the originators, arriving at easier-to-like artwork. It's not very often somebody is both ancient and his work still extremely potent and easy to understand/enjoy by modern audiences.

However a lot of people still read Tintin with great ease and consider his work to be much more enjoyable than all the other names mentioned in this thread. I just don't happen to be one of them, neither are you. That's fine.

My favourite comic artists are Andrea Pazienza, Alberto Breccia, Barry Widsor Smith, Yukito Kishiro, Chris Ware, Robert Crumb, Alan Davis, Craig Russell and Will Eisner.

[LimpingFish]

Yes, I'll admit to agreeing on both points.

For the record, my favourites would include: Jordi Bernet, Will Eisner, Alex Toth, Kevin Nowlan, Wally Wood, Steve Ditko, Michael T Gilbert, Bruce Timm, and Kyle Baker. Among many others.