So where do you stand on this Zig Forums?

It doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught.

>No matter what you create with such methods it will never be truly yours.
That makes no sense, YOU still made the final product

Attached: Fruitcake Park.png (1552x1140, 1.75M)

Technically yes, but only in a technical sense. A comic you made by tracing and copying the work of others is just going through the motions. It is purely a mechanical function and leaves little room to impart ones own humanity in the process. I know it is a buzzword around here but the SOULLESS meme fits perfectly in this situation.

>wally wood's art is soulless
Get out.

Attached: Witzend 04-04.jpg (1400x1814, 1.22M)

>No matter what you create with such methods it will never be truly yours.
Saying shit like that only proves how fucking ignorant you are about art as a whole. Artists have been using the camara obscura for 600 years.
This says more about you than about Wally Wood, friend. Now go read some more Tom King Mister Miracle or whatever.
You're not much better either, there were plenty of terrible artists back then as well, comparing Wally Wood to Greg Land is the same thing as comparing some uncredited literal who in Harvey Comics to Frank Quitely or Daniel Warren Johnston.
I approve. Comics, specially when Wally was working in them, are a commercial art enterprise, and in any form of commerce, optimitizing the production is welcome. Of course, if you're a shitty draftsman, tracing will only make it worse, but if you're Wally fucking Wood, tracing is just another tool in your arsenal.

Attached: wood_cannon.jpg (1309x811, 285.32K)

There is a difference between curated reference and Greg Land tier rote copying. Wally Wood's non-traced work is very appealing, but something that looks like a literal cut and paste project... not so much.

Where do you think you are?

No, that's only if you trace whole sale with no art in it.
Notice how Stan Drake said he still studied what he traced to know what made them beautiful and Wood's credo literally says knowing when to do what.
There's still skill involved, and they're still composing, adjusting, and inking.
If Tracing were just so easy, Land and UggoJesse would be just as good as Wood or Kirby.

Attached: image.jpg (1200x1200, 152.8K)

>There is a difference between curated reference and Greg Land tier rote copying.
The only difference here is dedication and draftsmanship. Woody was notoriously difficult to work with, I have to assume part of it comes from his not so charming personality, but part must come from the fact that it doesn't matter how god tier you are, doing work with this level of naturalism takes TIME.
Meanwhile, Greg Land can probably pencil a book a week, making him, from the executive / logistic point of view, a godsend. I'll bet you that most editors working today (on mainstream comics at least) would pick Land before Wood for a book.
Having said that, I think this is part of the problem with comics, and that having a team doing these huge arcs to be released as a tpb is the worst possible format, stories should be more self-contained and creative teams should rotate in order to guarantee a better looking / better written book.

"Wally Wood's Credo" was made in the sixties when he was using shortcuts like that to maximize his income. He was also not above having one of his assistants (Dan Adkins, Bill Pearson, etc) pencil the work, which he would ink and pass off as a full Wood job. That doesn't point to a lack of talent. That points to the low rates that existed in comics during the sixties. Wally Wood could draw better than 90% of people in the industry. He just chose not to kill himself for low rates.

As for Stan Drake, if you look at enough examples from Juliet Jones or Kelly Green, you can spot the panels he lightboxed from a fashion magazine. These shortcuts again don't reflect a lack of talent, because Drake taught himself to be a pretty good artist. It was an attempt to achieve a look that he didn't always have the time to get doing it himself. Purists might call it dishonest, but they probably never had to make a deadline.

Is any of this any more dishonest that Milton Caniff having Dick Rockwell produce Steve Canyon, then he inks the faces and signs his name? Is it anymore dishonest than Sheldon Moldoff tracing Foster and Raymond and turning them into Hawkman? Sometimes the end result justifies the act.

Ok zoomie

Spoken like someone who has a surface understanding of art history

>it will never be truly yours
no shit, they were selling it to carny newspaper publishers for a quick buck

I remembered reading that Dan Adkins got a lot of shit heaped on him for swiping. I think what changed is that fans started closely following the books a lot so they were able to spot which poses came from where.

The problem I see is that by the time of the 90's to now most fans think Liefeld and Land are bad just because they swipe, and aren't aware that swiping was a prevalent thing as far back as the Golden Age of Comics, Where Land has a problem is that his swipes do not feel naturally inserted into the story.

Then there's people who swipe, but alter it to make it their own.

>Is any of this any more dishonest that Milton Caniff having Dick Rockwell produce Steve Canyon, then he inks the faces and signs his name?

See this is an interesting thing to bring up, this is how most comic strips worked, where the cartoonist created the comic and after it's successful is able to hire uncredited assistants to help work on the comic. Will Eisner did this around the final years of The Spirit, I think.

How the fuck does a comic book enthusiast not know who Wally Motherfucking Wood was?

Hell

>Majority of posters don't read comics
>The few that do rarely read past modern capeshit and mostly just to whine
>Ontop of that they're only aware of the most notorious creators

And I feel bad about putting Wally Wood and Greg Land on the same level like that (and then raising Land a bit) so let me rephrase things:
One reason why was so easy for Jack Kirby to land constant jobs despite publishers knowing about his stuborness was the fact that Jack could deliver you a whole book of pencils in a weekend, sometimes needing nothing more than a quick briefing over the phone. Now, I'm not saying the King was bad, as a matter of fact, I much prefer his work to Wally Wood's (who I also enjoy a lot), but Kirby's work is leagues behind Wood in terms of pure composition and naturalism, because even if you can draw like a monster (and both men could), shit like that takes time for you to figure out, both on a "how can I insert these elements in the most clear, readable and realistic way" and "how can I position those things to get the maximum effect" (and I'm not saying Kirby's compositions were bad either, but the more you read his work the more you realize he merely fine tuned things over 60 years of work to the point where he had an innate understanding of shit and he had enough tricks not to get repetitive, but still it was a limited number).
Putting pencil to paper isn't necessarily the most important part of the job, and Wood's famous "19 (I think?) panels that always work" take a very different light once you study his work and realize those things were only time savers because everything else was so intricate it probably took him way longer than it should.

>666

Attached: 5c1281aaa905481628468702.jpg (1100x550, 36.68K)

If they did know who Wally Wood was, they would understand why Greg Land's art is bad instead of saying things around the lines of
>GREG LAND BAD BECAUSE SWIPE
And it's not even a Zig Forums thing, it's also outside of here

he's fucking old and any conversation you can still have about old names in comic books come from industry nerds.

>See this is an interesting thing to bring up, this is how most comic strips worked, where the cartoonist created the comic and after it's successful is able to hire uncredited assistants to help work on the comic. Will Eisner did this around the final years of The Spirit, I think.
Manga still works like that to this day, western society as a whole has a very troubled notion of it's relationship with the genius. I'm a woodcut teacher and studying the history of the woodcut, up until the 18th century NONE of the master woodcuters in the world (and afaik, up until the post-war period in Japan) would engrave their own plates, which is such an asinine notion today that my professor in college actually doubted when I told him that.
Up until the 19th century, most painters also had a bunch of jobbers to do the boring shit in their work in exchange for education, but the modernist idea of the genius as this isolated being receiving divine inspiration and the rampant individualism in our society turning "making everything for yourself" a virtuous thing.
I don't think either one is right or wrong, but sometimes when I'm drawing or engraving I wish I had a slav-apprentice to do the heavy work for me and then berate them for being worse than me.

I'd say Wally Wood is pretty notorious

22

Attached: wally_woods_22_panels.jpg (999x763, 254.44K)

Zig Forums is full of sad virgins that only read the popular old stuff, watched the DCAU and don't engage with the new just to shitpost about OLD GOOD NEW BAD and shilling the snyder cut.

I use a crazy amount of black. I could really use an assistant for flood fills. But I’m nodody so that’s not likely to happen.

user, I stopped engaging with new Big two comics back when Bendis was writing Avengers.
I tried Immortal Hulk, but it’s not for me.

Oops meant for

It only makes it weirder that you don't know who Wally Wood is, EC Comics is babbys first non-big two.

Wouldn't that be Image, or Dark Horse?