I don't believe that they are. A tasteful application of modern colouring techniques can make the old masters look like their work belongs in new comics today:



Would you agree or not?

I agree, at least as it pertains to the best artists of old doing their best work.

You'd be amazed at the quality of the art in these Warren Archives I'm reading. I'm reading Blazing Combat now, and it absolutely blows away most of the comic books today, without even adjusting for era. Work by Joe Orlando, Alex Toth, Reed Crandall, and Al Williamson, to name a few.

Plus, a lot of the stories are watercolor washed (though black and white), so they even have the modern variations in shades.

The only thing is that the panels (the shots actually drawn) are a bit pedestrian by today's standards. The story sure is easy to follow, though.

And I should point out, Blazing Combat was 1965.

And now for some Creepy, circa 1964:

They are reprinting Tales of Asgard with new coloring

It looks better

But still old fashioned to some degree

Some of it is how small they drew things with much more panels.

"Old fashioned" is hard to define. I've seen art by Milt Caniff, Joe Kubert, Wally Wood, and others which (other than coloring generally) rivals anything being produced today. Dynamic, realistic, action-packed, just fantastic art. On the other hand, some guys seen as the pinnacle of the profession at the time, their art doesn't hold up for me at all. I think it boils down to taste.

Rob is correct about small panels and strict grid layouts, admittedly. I'm speaking only of the actual artists style rather than any format guidelines though.

No.

Sweet stuff, Jay!

I agree with what most here are saying the only thing old fashioned are the panel layouts (big deal). The art itself is better than much of what is lauded as top rank today.

Honestly i dont think many of the artists of the 60s and before, if they drew like they drew then, could get work today.

(and were alive )

They had storytelling ability but it simply doesnt look as good.

I think that the art is as good or better than what we have today, but I don't think that their style would fly in today's market. No matter the writer or colorist paired with the artist, I think that fans would still think of it as retro. I don't think that it's as apparent to us older fans, but Perez and Ordway are seen as Old School to younger readers. I'd think that artists from the 60's would be seen as extreme retro.

Jeff & Kurt put it perfectly.

this.

Some stuff from yesteryear is different, sure, but I don't really perceive it as "old fashioned".

I've spent the past week reading back issues of Brave & Bold by Haney, Aparo, and later, rotating writers. 70's and early 80's Aparo would kick everyone else's ass today.

TRUTH!

If you look at the simplicity of today's original art pencil and ink pages
it becomes apparant that it's much more of a team effort today, the colorist
is much more contributory, and consiquently important, to the success of the finished picture.

In many cases the detail of Perez, the realism of Swan, the textures of Colan would all be a waste of each penciller's time and effort.

So, i think Linda's original point is noteworthy.

Expanding on my previous post
it would be interesting to see Gerry take an old simple-line 1960s Action or Batman
cover with minimal lines but lots of different elements like supporting casts, cars, office furniture,
street scene with extras, or similar earth-bound picture
and go wild with today's pallette and techniques; making silver age simplicity into modern age
(what I call) retro paper back book covers that they use for comics theses days.

Much of it is unmistakably a product of its time. But the best quality work need not apologize for that.

At first, I didn't like computer colouring (I first saw it in issues of The Technophage), but now it's grown on me. I think that, once any stuff is re-done with it, it takes on a different look. A more "modern" look, I guess.