Dan

Keith Giffen actually looks like one of his drawings!
I like his writing, but not his art, but he should be below the 2 men above.

Did I miss Mike Grell–I don’t recall seeing him on the writer list & he should be.

Largely, I’m pretty happy with the lists. There were several writers and artists in high ranking that, really, I just don’t get. I’ve enjoyed three things by Gaimen (one being a novel) and a couple things by Moore and really probably only Dark Knight Returns by Miller (his other writing being merely adequate), but largely, I don’t get the allure. I do think they should have made the list, but maybe in the bottom half. Still above Wheadon though

With the artists, I was happy to see most of my favourites and sighed begrudgingly for those who I knew would have to be on the list despite my thoughts that they don’t deserve it.

All around though? Great list of a lot of great creators.

Which is hardly surprising. Dude can sell a ton of comics, as long as Brian Azzarello isn’t writing them, and that sort of popularity was bound to be represented here.

& where was david mazzuchelli?
Bill Finger even?

all in all probably better than a wizard list.

For what it’s worth, I can see why Lee is #2, and I’d point to the dynamic quality of his art as his particular speciality. It has a lot of energy, and as has been said I think it’s Kirby-esque in the sense that kids are drawn to it.

I actually think the artists list came out far better than the writers. There’s a noticable bias towards the recent in the writers list, but I think the artist distribution is a lot more even.

On the other hand it seems very hard for people (me included) to dislike a piece of art and still be able to say that it is well done. It is easy for people to say thing like ‘Watchmen is really well done, I just don’t enjoy those kinds of themes’. It is rare that you hear ‘Fantastic Four is really well drawn, I just don’t enjoy the art’.

Personal bias seems to play a much greater part in our perception of the art. Or at least that’s my 2c’s

No joke, just a mistake on my part. All fixed.

And Paul Pope makes no appearance. A serious omission. How about Osuma (Astro Boy) Tezuka?

Was it a joke that the graphics in the Morrison vs. Moore parts got mixed up? But imagine: Watchmen remixed by Morrison, Invisibles remixed by Moore.

Ooohh maaann

I would never, ever argue against Kirby — to my mind, he’s one of the only people on either of these lists who’s right where he belongs. Jim Lee, though…huh. I mean, to me, Kirby brings so much passion and boundless invention to the work that he’s uncontestable. Lee I kinda feel like brings a lot of passion for guns and seven-foot-tall women with breast implants to the work, and not really any invention at all. Even if he did inspire the house style of ’90s Marvel (which seems debatable), that’s not exactly an honorific. Of the Image guys, I’d argue that McFarlane brought a lot more to the table; like Kirby, anatomy and perspective are concepts with which McFarlane appears never to have been acquainted, but at his best, I think he was able to transcend (I can only presume!) a lack of training and just channel pure id onto the page. He didn’t have the imagination of Kirby, but he had a lot of the power. By contrast, Lee’s early work felt cold and plastic to me, and his current stuff is — I’m sorry — just not all that appealing to my (subjective) eye. I’m not saying Lee is the godawfulest artist of all time or anything, I’m just saying I…really…can’t see it. And in comparison to most of the artists on that list, I really really can’t see it.

That is a shame.

Jack Kirby pretty much defined the Marvel house style. We all love Colan and Romita and Ditko and those guys, but we still regularly see comics springboarding off Kirby’s style of tech and energy fields (Kirby dots). When’s the last time you saw a Godland for Ditko or a Kubert tribute comic?

I think that Jim Lee absolutely deserves the number two spot. He’s the artist who has sold the copies of one single issues, though variant covers helped, and he went from being number three or four out of the Image founders (I believe that Todd McFarlane was #1 and Liefeld was #2 in sales) to selling his company to DC. His X-Men is still the definitive version and one which a lot of people, myself included, remember fondly. He took that semi-cartoony semi-realistic art and catapulted it into the limelight. Jim Lee still draws a mean comic, and he’s shown that he has a much better grasp on anatomy and the basics than a lot of other (now forgotten) early ’90s comics artists. He also hasn’t been afraid to let his art style grow. he did a watercolor pinup for 100 Bullets that was amazing, and he’s been talking about including some Steranko-style stuff in Wildcats. Not to mention the fact that Marvel spent years aping Lee’s style, just like they did Kirby’s. Both are good art.

Both are pop comics. You show a kid, or even an adult, a Kirby or Lee comic and they’re gonna want to read it. It’s energetic, it’s exciting, and both of them have a great eye for detail. And when they both let loose, like Kirby and his insane spacescapes and the Fourth World stuff in general, or Lee on Wildcats and Superman, you get something lovely.

The top two are spot-on. I can’t get enough of either artist, to be quite honest.

Because I think that person deserves his own column. I know I’d be interested in hearing his opinions!

I am working on a blog post (for my own blog, I mean) about why I like Jim Lee and Wildstorm in general. I probably won’t be able to get done until Sunday due to a couple of outstanding (and not in the good way…) deadlines, but I can drop a link here for you if you want.

Uh, unless you were being sarcastic, in which case, pretend I said nothing!