This Is Why John Buscema Was A Better Artist Than You

Years, and I mean years, ago I remember having an argument in a comic book store in Melbourne with some idiot who spent the better part of the afternoon trying to convince me that John Buscema wasn’t as good an artist as, say, Jim Lee or Rob Liefeld, or anyone from Image for that matter.  As is the way with such people nothing I said would sway his opinion, so I simply gave up and allowed him to ramble on and on, much to the growing amusement of people around him.  Not to denigrate Liefeld, or Lee for that matter, but I’m sure that Rob would agree that he’s nowhere near as good an artist as the late John Buscema.  And here’s why.

What follows are prime examples of what Big John would do to warm up before he began drawing proper.  Most artists will go entire careers and not get near this level of expertise, and this is John in his downtime.  This is John just fooling about, getting his poses and anatomy right before he commits the pencil to the page for publication.  This is why John Buscema was always a better artist than the majority of his peers when he was alive, and, if alive, would still a better artist than the bulk of those working today.  Look upon these warm-up sketches and learn something – practice makes perfect.  There wasn’t a day when John wouldn’t draw something, even if it was just this kind of sketching.  Good art isn’t about splashy pages with lots of smoke and explosions; it’s about being able to convey emotion into your work.   Plus John Buscema could tell you more about his art in one sketch than anyone can in a thousand words, and if you don’t believe me, then you just don’t know great art when you see it.

 

Comments

Kid said…
I've got to agree with those sentiments.
Ian Miller said…
If anyone wants to see some more Buscema sketches, check out this page: http://buscemalostdrawings.wordpress.com

You can get lost for hours on there.

giantsizegeek said…
Wow, love to see this stuff, always heard about his back page drawings. Thanks also for the wordpress blog, Ian!
Unknown said…
Some people today are really enamored by the style of the modern artists today like Jim Lee and his contemporaries...but they do have a somewhat limited concept of what is good art. They belong to those who believe that as long as you can draw all those little lines and details, that already makes great art and artist...but with John, all he needs are a few lines to convey mood and detail with out cluttering up the page with unnecessary details.
Unknown said…
Couldn't agree with your more Gilbert. He took King Kirby's movement and polished it like a diamond. Simple, pure, aesthetic penciling.
Although it's apparent that he was influenced by Kirby,they were really more like chalk and cheese.He had a naturalistic style that made you believe they were real human beings,not comic book characters.It's difficult to compare him to other artists with realistic styles,like Neal Adams,who was technically superior in figure drawing,but he lacked John Buscema's depth in facial expression.
Unknown said…
Yes, Yes, my friend, you have spoken the truth.
Inspired by Buscema as a kid, now an Illustrator by trade, cannot get enough of this guys art!
Unknown said…
Man where do I start this man was my idol when it came to comic artist. His anatomy proportions were perfect. His depictions of women were sensuous. And people forget how complete an artist he was My goodness he could draw a horse a dog a Siberian tiger an octopus as good as his super heroes. Because of him at 59yrs old i got back into drawing super heroes. He was and will always be one of my biggest influences to draw.
Anonymous said…
in my 40 years collecting comics, i have never failed to be bored by buscema artwork. i'm sure he's competent and a 'great artist' but then again pretty much would avoid buying anything he drew. it just was very unstimulative to me. that goes quadruple for his brother.
Xenocarthic said…
Adams at his best was certainly more polished and I think he could conjure presence which was pretty much unmatched. He was also more adventurous in his composition - foreshortening and unusual angles that were a delight.

But Buscema’s work has power and vigour - in the mould of Frazetta or Hogarth - and he was a really natural artist. His work always seemed effortless and he was prolific. Although his inks didn’t have the bravura and polish of Adams, it delivered on the dynamism of his pencils in a way none of his inkers could quite match. And while Adams work failed on occasions (and toward the end of his career has gone off the boil), Buscema was always consistently excellent.

His work was not flashy, but his draughtsmanship was consistently excellent - and that is perhaps the most fundamental of the gifts a great comic artist needs. Buscema was perhaps the greatest exponent of those core skills and he deserves a place among the select pantheon of the greats in the field.
Unknown said…
That fact that any human being would think Rob Liefeld is in the same league as John Buscema is disgusting. That comparison should never have happened.
Anonymous said…
You'll never find a bigger fan of John than me. But with due respect, some of the samples shown here fall flat even technically which makes me wonder if every pic is fully John. For example, the Cap sample has problems with the juxtoposition of the head to the torso and the figure's left deltoid or shoulder assemblage is definitely problematic. I'd have to examine it more closely and deconstruct the drawing and then reconstruct it to make a scientific and not subjective point. On the other hand, that back-shot of Conan is impeccable. It's a complicated perspective with appropriate foreshortening in the torso and pelvic regions as well as the appendages with congruent overlapping. It's unmistakenly the work of a master. I have actually gone over John's published drawings with a lightbox for improvements and there's definitely problems in his work from time-to-time, but I have the luxury of simply correcting the fundamentals without myself having constructed the fundamentals in this case. Is John perfect? No. But here's the bottom line: John's worst work is still better than most artists' best work. In oter words, when most artists are 40% to 70% correct in their technical savvy, John ranges from 70% to 98%. In addition to that, whatever faults he has can mostly be ascribed to lightning fast page production. He could do 7 pages a day of breakdowns when most artists struggle doing one page a day. John was a genius.
John probably drew a way more realistic outer figure then Jim or Todd at different angles but where Jim bested him was at his shading, and metallic techniques as well as Jim's faces have a unique Euro Asian style even though they are sometimes too stiff but not always. Todd on the other hand I think bests both in unique style and detailing techniques. No one drew artwork that looked anything like Todd's and his work is harder to figure out what he was thinking in many places. Just look at how his capes come alive. John Buscema and Bryne though we're probably more refined figure sketchers without a specific reference. Like John's drawings weren't always picture accurate proportionwise but they usually seemed fairly close. His style was actually like almost the generic style of the 70s and before. John Buscema, Bryne, Gil Kane, Art Adams, John Romita Sr. Their styles were way more similar then the styles of the 90s. Their styles also became the blueprint for many cartoons. Space Ghost, Herculoids, The Hulk, probably even Scooby Doo. Not Scooby but his human friends aside from Shagy are similar. This style started in the early 60s through the 80s if you look at enough works.
Giulyano said…
Honestly, his conversation and that of his colleague are both child's talk, making artists very different for comparison, the cool thing that Buscema has this art, but not everyone likes it, I think he is doing it Superheroes very generic, compared to his phase drawing Conan and you come and say an absurdity as big as the comparison of the iguinorante there,John Buscema is better than any artist today first, he was not the best even in his day he competed with Esteban Maroto, Sérgio Topp and then later on came people who improved his art, but that doesn't make him any less influentialbut he is also not the top artist even more if you look at that there are different languages ​​and other artists from other countries doing something along the lines of Buscema and he was hardworking I mean that a Cartoon guy is less hardworking I tell you instead of comparing stupidly think that artists with different techniques, styles and languages ​​and that Buscema is really cool, but Kentaro Miura, Esteban Maroto, Druilet current artists like Guilherme Petreca and Chaboute there is an art that would make John Buscema proud of the diversity, summing up his post you did the same thing as the guy only that the two of them were wrong in the art aspect in general without favoritism, but diversity of course not saying that you might not like it I'm not a big fan of Crumb, but I like some drawings and I recognize its importance in the Underground Comic.
Unknown said…
John Buscemas art was impecable . He inspired me to draw . I told my girl friend what really set him above other artist was he drew anything . Cat, dog, house, car, horse tiger, landscape and inanimate objects . Then the super hero a regular guy . Older people young people you name it . And let's not forget hi females . So beautiful and sensuous the man was a complete artist . But as great as he was when it came to drawing Captain America his brother Sal's version (In my opinion) was the best depiction of Cap .
J Scherpenhuizen said…
Well, there's no disputing taste, but Buscema's influence is unquestionable. He took Kirby's dynamics and beat him at his own game, adding the elegance and draughtmanship of an Alex Raymond to it. He could ink himself so well that few efforts could compare (though Alcalla and Palmer are sublime). I love European art, I appreciate great new artists like Jae Lee, Frank Miller, Mike Mignola, P Craig Russel, Stuart Imonen, etc etc etc (okay, so some of them aren't so new anymore) but I keep on going back to Buscema for inspiration. To some he'll be dismissed as 'old school' but for me, he's a master, a classic, an artist's artist who just looks better and better with time. There's few like him, Colan, Kirby, Wrightson, BWSmith, Adams, people who drew always with lyricism, power and intensity and never mailed it in but pit something memorable in every book they touched.

Previous Posts!

Show more

Popular posts from this blog

New York Scam: A Serious Warning For All Travellers

MARVEL COMICS DEMANDS $17,000 from BROKE CREATOR of GHOST RIDER! The Shame Of Marvel...Part II

Yogi Bear's Sexuality Explained