And for the record, calling Miller's more recent work "expressionism" is an insult to talented artists. There's a difference between guys like Pope and guys like Miller. Pope has a style that impresses me, but doesn't fit on the page of a superhero comic book. Miller has just taken on a style that is deliberately unattractive. While it is consistent, it just crafter specifically to frack with people. And the idea of doing that is one of the most irritating things about "artists" today. All shock and screw-you, no performance.

Of course, the beauty of Miller at his best (or close to it) is that he isn't just a great artist, but he's great at writing for other artists. Here's hoping the next Give Me Liberty volume continues that pattern.

But, for me, his creator-owned stuff suits his artwork better (naturally), and can often be quite beautiful, in its own kind of way. I agree with Mark Andrew's assessment of Miller wholeheartedly, although I don't think you need to be an art history scholar at all to come to those conclusions.

But yeah, different strokes for different folks, and all that.

At the time, I hadn't really SEEN much of his work with the exception of that ad, and frankly... it wasn't good.
He DID draw one Dr Strange cover (as shown in the urban legends post), and it, also, was bland.

Of course, afterwards, I had seen SEVERAL pieces that Miller drew of Strange, including:

- Spider-Man annual # 14
and
the 1980 Doctor Strange Marvel Calendar.

Miller drew a FANTASTIC piece that was used to the back cover.

My scanner is out of whack, or I'd post a pic.
Anyone else have that handy?

Anyway, after seeing what Miller did with D.D., he might have been a good selection for Doc after all.
And the bi-monthly schedule would have helped him keep quality up.

Ah well... we got some GREAT Marshall Rogers issues instead which kicked ALL kinds of @$$, and then Paul Smith, so...it's all good.

~P~
P-TOR

My criticism of Miller's art (of the past few years) as ugly (actually, as UGLY) doesn't mean I instead require my comics art to be pretty, or that I want my comics "chicks" to be "hot." How hot, or not, the chicks are, that's not remotely close to a major factor in my assessment of anybody's work. (Though I am tired of twisted T&A in comics, the kind we're seeing a lot of lately, especially from Michael Turner.)

Specific to Miller, I'm turned off by how skanky -- and bizarrely out of proportion! have you seen that weird Wonder Woman-from-behind drawing?! -- his women are on his All-Star covers. But it's not only about his women, not at all. I just think his art is ugly. All of it. His art made DK2 an even worse slog than the muddled and ridiculous story. (Let's face it, his recent writing isn't even close to what it used to be, either. My favorite comic by him is "Batman: Year One," and that's, what, 20 years old? And he didn't even draw that. I also loved his "Daredevil" run. That's what I'll read if I wanna see some quality Miller.)

I'm not saying he's a hack. I'm not saying he didn't used to be great. I recognize that, as a designer, he's still got the chops. His page layouts, his panel composition -- still sweet. But overall, it's just ugly to look at. All of it. His women, his men, his buildings, everything. He's developed a style I simply care for. For those who are down with this new artistic front of his -- clearly, many are; his sales are great -- then good for you. Enjoy. I'd much rather look at a comic from another really talented comics auteur, like Darwyn Cooke or Chris Ware (to name two guys at the top of their game). Or, if we're talking artists only (not writer/artists), J.H. Williams III or Frank Quitely. All four of these creators have really different visual styles, all of which I love to look at. Comics are a visual medium, so if it doesn't engage me visually, it's gonna be a really hard sell.

Good thing I wasn't a big Doctor Strange fan back then, or I'd have been left disappointed. (Took Roy and Dann Thomas' late 80s/early 90s run to win me over.)

ah, the days when Frank Miller drew comprehensible artwork.

Do you know what "comprehensible" means? I can understand someone not liking it but it's always easy to comprehend

(An' let's face it, at least half of the women in Miller's body of work ARE whores.)

And, admitedly, I'm way more interested in how well art fits the material than how pretty it is. Or how ugly.

Which ain't to say that "pretty" isn't a valid way to judge art. But it's not the only criteria, and Miller's very, VERY good at what he does. (Although if yer major criteria is how hot the chicks look we're probably not gonna have TOO much to discuss here.)

No kidding! All of DK2, plus his covers for ASBARTBW (ugh, what a title) are godawful sins again paper.

Oh don't be stupid.

Saying "Sins against paper" or "vomit" or "crap"

Or any of the other adjectives the George Perez fans apply to expressionistic artists like Miller or Paul Pope or Crumb....

is always gonna make you sound dumb unless you, well, know REALLLY well whatcher talking about.

Not to your taste is fine, mind.

I mean, Miller's extrordinarily good at what he does, especially once we ignore Detich or Clowes and focus only on the commerical mainstream..

But he is pretty idysoincratic for that crowd. He's one of the very few who seemsta look at art like, well, a fine artist not a commercial artist.

Admittedly, this holds more weight with me as an art history major than it probably does for you. But each piece is 'bout communicating an IDEA, not about, well, drawing in an attractive manner.

(Although, GOOD GOD, I just saw a link to his cover for All Star #4 on another blog, and I think I wanna marry it.)

What he's specifically good at are

(A) Shadow and inking. Just DUMPING on the black and making the audience work to figure out what's up. (Or so I've heard. I never had the slightest problem figgering out any of Miller's stuff, but, thengain, art history major 'nall.)

And giving his characters this Kirby-esque sense of SCOPE. Like making 'em look BIG.

and (C) Twisting his idiosyncratic art style around for each project. Sin City don't look a damn thing like 300, although they're both obviously Miller.

Of course, it also doesn't hurt that a lot of the appeal of Miller's stuff to me is seeing reactions like yours.

If someone's THAT angry, we know we got art that's challenging some perceptions. And if THAT'S happening, I bet it's changing some people's view of the world. So it's cool to know that even in comics art's doin' what art's supposed to do.

No kidding! All of DK2, plus his covers for ASBARTBW (ugh, what a title) are godawful sins again paper.

And all they said was it would happen every 60 days - they never said when those 60 days would start...