I've changed my mind about Stuart Immonen...

[Random]

There is a BIG difference when using photo reference or models. Most artist either produce all the work themselves or have consent to use it from the creators. When you take someone else's work and trace it, when it's not as satire or a parody, that is plagiarism. From the examples I've seen of Land it's not even a homage, just "I'm lazy and don't feel like putting the work into it so I'll take someone else's"

 

[Victor Von Doom]

Land is putting a mask over someone else's work, Larocca and Deodato aren't much better in that regard with celebrity matching. But Land is the worst example of this, you can create a Land comic with some scane of a sports illustrated and a good version of photoshop.

Bradstreet, and Alex Ross, and Quesada all take their own photo's, often of themselves for reference, and draw something new over it.

There is a BIG difference when using photo reference or models. Most artist either produce all the work themselves or have consent to use it from the creators. When you take someone else's work and trace it, when it's not as satire or a parody, that is plagiarism. From the examples I've seen of Land it's not even a homage, just "I'm lazy and don't feel like putting the work into it so I'll take someone else's"

I don't know.

I think there is plenty of validity to the arguement that Land is guilty plagarism. But to an extent. He's done plenty of stuff where he's obviously had to draw the scene/character itself. And we don't know if he and Marvel have gone thru the proper legal routes to use a magazine/model/photographer's photos and likeness? We can speculate, but we can't say for sure. And from there, if Land likes to use his "own" work over and over again---then that's he and Marvel's perogitive.

Sounds like the one thing Land is guilty of is not taking the photos himself. And maybe being lazy by using the same pics over and over again.



Another person guilty of using the same pose over and over again? Michael Turner. Go ahead say something bad about the dead! I dare you!





Personally, I like Land's work. I really do. Reagrdless of his method. His work on the Ultimate books and Uncanny X-Men have been very enjoyable.

 

[Random]

And we don't know if he and Marvel have gone thru the proper legal routes to use a magazine/model/photographer's photos and likeness?

That is true, but I really doubt it. I'm using Plagarism in a strict sense, anything he's done probably isn't worth the legal action so no one really cares. I just feel there are a ton of great artist out there who would never even consider taking someone else's creative property who would love to have the job Land has. Kinda pisses me off.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

Meh. I guess.

I don't doubt that there are plenty of other artists who are better than Land, and after talking to CB, Bagley and some other industry guys at HeroesCon...I have a better understanding at exactly how hard it can be to get that big break in the industry. So I know that once artists get those big gigs and make those connections that they're the ones more likely to get the continuous work on more mainstream titles, but from a business standpoint I can see why, with all the critcial complaints about Land, that they'd still opt for him on certain titles rather than better artists.

If Land can churn out 1 or 2 titles consistantly using his cut/paste/recolor method and it looks good-----and meanwhile there is a better artist like Dodson or Hitch who can only produce a single issue once every 2-3 months.....then I'm gonna go with Land. I know as fans, we'd like Marvel to produce the best quality product they possibly can (and we'd like to think Marvel would want to as well). But at the end of the day it's just business.

I admit that while I like to see titles with Land's work...I do occasionally get tired of seeing the same shots/frames over and over again.

 

[ProjectX2]

I used to quite like Land (Sojourn, Phoenix Endsong, UFF) but it seems he's gotten lazier and lazier (Ultimate Power, Uncanny X-Men, every damn cover he does). He doesn't even bother drawing their legs anymore!

 

[Victor Von Doom]

No legs?

Is Land the new Leifeld? :shock:

 

[Ice]

I like Land's work, but I can understand the dislike for him.

I mean, the guy almost got Marvel sued because he took a picture of a prince (or someone of royalty) from Spain and just put Magneto's head over it for what was supposed to be a cover for a HoM issue. That made Marvel send a Memorandum to all their artists about how they go about using other photos/etc. for their work.

No legs?

Is Land the new Leifeld? :shock:

Well, Land hasn't drawn legs AT ALL with on some of his covers.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

I mean, the guy almost got Marvel sued because he took a picture of a prince (or someone of royalty) from Spain and just put Magneto's head over it for what was supposed to be a cover for a HoM issue. That made Marvel send a Memorandum to all their artists about how they go about using other photos/etc. for their work.

That I didn't know.

Well as long as he legally goes about getting his pics....then ok.

 

[fenway]

If these methods are accurate, then Land's 'creative process' is a little backwards also.

The author says, 'give me an action shot where Namor is punching Reed in the face, with his right hand, and holding a trident with his left. Also, he should be smiling as he does it, etc, etc.'

MOST artists would get a picture in their head of what they'd like to draw, and then draw it.

SOME artists pose models exactly as they picture it, take a photo, and trace it.

Land (if this is correct), leafs through lots of existing photos, and finds the one closest, and traces it.

Isn't his method, from the above three, the only one that sounds like the expression 'Close enough' comes up a lot?

 

[Random]

I mean, the guy almost got Marvel sued because he took a picture of a prince (or someone of royalty) from Spain and just put Magneto's head over it for what was supposed to be a cover for a HoM issue. That made Marvel send a Memorandum to all their artists about how they go about using other photos/etc. for their work.

Hmm, I originally thought that was an homage to a famous painting, not work stolen from a ... non famous one?