(Cont. from http://www.2000adonline.com/?zone=fan&page=messagethread&choice=19989&skipto=-1&Replies=66>Prog 1539 thread.)
McMahon's latest. It'd be easy to say it's just more to do with artdroids always coming back never being as good. Look at O'Neill's final Nemesis or Redondo's ho-hum Missionary Man, or Bolland's uninspired cover for Origins with those cut'n'paste bikes or Sola's recent Flesh doodle, Ewin's final Bad Company series or Hicklenton in the current Meg, the list goes on. (Personally, I always loved Ron Smith's art and hated Simon Bisley's. But neither have done anything in the prog for years and if their art appeared in the next prog I'd most likely think they were both rubbish, so it can't be nostalgia to blame.)
It's not like everyone's being subjective or ignorant all the time because sometimes the off day (or even years) is bleedin' obvious. It's just natural. Heck, artdroids like Ezquerra, Gibson, Higgins who've been around since the start are probably a better indicator of highs and lows. The last generation including Irving, Flint, Jock, Walker and Fraser (sorry, that just sounds like Dad's Army) will go the same way.
But why? Getting slicker and more spontaneous always seems confused with becoming lazy and rushed. Sometimes it's the readers confusing the two, sometimes it's the artists. It cuts both ways. Which side of the fence are you on? If you've met an artdroid, do you think your objectivity is clouded by courtesy or professional mateyness? Or are you a self-appointed expert who just wishes those other self-appointed experts would learn to bloody draw before coming up with their tuppence? Do you think any artdroids have actually improved with age and can you tell us why?
McMahon's latest. It'd be easy to say it's just more to do with artdroids always coming back never being as good. Look at O'Neill's final Nemesis or Redondo's ho-hum Missionary Man, or Bolland's uninspired cover for Origins with those cut'n'paste bikes or Sola's recent Flesh doodle, Ewin's final Bad Company series or Hicklenton in the current Meg, the list goes on. (Personally, I always loved Ron Smith's art and hated Simon Bisley's. But neither have done anything in the prog for years and if their art appeared in the next prog I'd most likely think they were both rubbish, so it can't be nostalgia to blame.)
It's not like everyone's being subjective or ignorant all the time because sometimes the off day (or even years) is bleedin' obvious. It's just natural. Heck, artdroids like Ezquerra, Gibson, Higgins who've been around since the start are probably a better indicator of highs and lows. The last generation including Irving, Flint, Jock, Walker and Fraser (sorry, that just sounds like Dad's Army) will go the same way.
But why? Getting slicker and more spontaneous always seems confused with becoming lazy and rushed. Sometimes it's the readers confusing the two, sometimes it's the artists. It cuts both ways. Which side of the fence are you on? If you've met an artdroid, do you think your objectivity is clouded by courtesy or professional mateyness? Or are you a self-appointed expert who just wishes those other self-appointed experts would learn to bloody draw before coming up with their tuppence? Do you think any artdroids have actually improved with age and can you tell us why?