/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6780764
>I *think* this is wrong;I would argue that they couldn't out of various limitations, not that this was intentional. And not that I think either that imitation of life is the pinacle of art either. Actually, neither was I suggesting that the French were better in imitation of life.
>Consider Bargue's plates for example. It's *not* an imitation of reality, you can tell from the plates for instance that there's often various kind of simplification devices being used. But it's overall very subtle, tight and delicate:it's objectively more refined that what was performed by the pioneers, from which Bargue & cie educated themselves.

I don't really disagree with you. I just think the Renaissance artist's idea of reality was different from Bargue's, less optical and more "felt." I realize that seems at odds with the then-recent discovery of linear perspective but ideas change gradually and in fits and starts.

Bargue etc. relied more heavily on models. Michelangelo of course studied models but composed entire pictures from imagination. He had a "type," a figure that is instantly recognizable both for its proportions and in the way it is modeled more to clarify form than to suggest the fall of light. The great comic artists of the mid-20th century have more in common with Michelangelo than do the modern atelier painters.

This is a matter of preference, but I like the "unrefined" handling of those older drawings, and I generally prefer a certain degree of roughness in drawing (but not too much!) over anything too slick.

Picrel shows a drawing by Frank Cho, who is one of the best comic artists working today, alongside a drawing from one of Mort Drucker's MAD illustrations (parody of the film "Dressed to Kill"). I admire Cho's clean-but-still-expressive inking, but Drucker's work really hits the spot. It just sings.