Realism and Art in Comics - Part One of an Ongoing Perspective

We all hate Rob Leifield. At least that's what one quick look at a few comic book message boards would tell you. His giant shoulder pads, the manly women, the biceps larger than a human head; at one point or another, I have even cited these reasons for loathing the man's presence in the world of American comic books. Yet, this got me to wondering: are we attacking the man for creating bad art, or are we attacking him for not doing realistic art. Yes, I have seen the Captain America pictures. I have also seen Salvador Dali and Pablo Picasso. Leifield will never be in their league, but what makes their departures into the strange, obscure and grotesque so much better than Leifield's? Before you flame me for supporting the man, here me out. I've often found myself supporting the more experimental painters, favoring impressionism and certain forms of cubism. How can I call myself an artist if I accept this in paintings, but not in any other medium? Its easy to point out anatomical inaccuracies in a comic book. Its easy to tear into a woman's giant breasts (take that as you will) or mocking the giant mouth on Plasticman. Yet, what if we're stifling some experimentation that could herald in a new artistic era in the comic medium? We've dealt with the same paneled format for decades, and we only rarely see any major departures from these formats. Yes, Leifield's work may hurt the eyes at times. But maybe we should take a break from torching everyone who does a stylistic approach and see if it flows with the story. That's my two cents.

"Realism and Art in Comics" will be an ongoing series, posted as more observations are made and more conclusions have been reached. The regular column, "The 25¢ Bin," will explore other topics.