<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Superb Coker cartoons, but...
Review: If you've seen Paul Coker Jr.'s "Horrifying Clishes" in Mad magazine, you know how great they are. Paul Coker is one of the greatest cartoonists who ever lived, and the concept behind this series really gives him a chance to show off his unique talent. BUT...
Somebody thought they'd get fancy and add some color to the drawings, and they MESSED THEM UP! The color is done on a computer, and it adds very dark areas that throw the beautiful compositions off badly. Coker himself was obviously not involved in this; it was probably done by some flunky fresh out of a 2nd rate art school working for minimum wage. It ruins the drawings in many bitterely disappointing instances. Coker himself has been known to add watercolor or ink wash to some of his work, and he does so with the delicacy and unerring judgement of a master. Why didn't they consult him, instead of printing blocks of opaque dark green over his exquisite line work? The color is mechanical and flat, with no sensitivity to form; it gradates from dark to light mathematically, just like a lifeless computer program. It adds nothing and in some cases obscures much. Shameful. This is still the best collection of Coker's art for Mad, though. Too bad.
Rating:
Summary: Superb Coker cartoons, but...
Review: If you've seen Paul Coker Jr.'s "Horrifying Clishes" in Mad magazine, you know how great they are. Paul Coker is one of the greatest cartoonists who ever lived, and the concept behind this series really gives him a chance to show off his unique talent. BUT...
Somebody thought they'd get fancy and add some color to the drawings, and they MESSED THEM UP! The color is done on a computer, and it adds very dark areas that throw the beautiful compositions off badly. Coker himself was obviously not involved in this; it was probably done by some flunky fresh out of a 2nd rate art school working for minimum wage. It ruins the drawings in many bitterely disappointing instances. Coker himself has been known to add watercolor or ink wash to some of his work, and he does so with the delicacy and unerring judgement of a master. Why didn't they consult him, instead of printing blocks of opaque dark green over his exquisite line work? The color is mechanical and flat, with no sensitivity to form; it gradates from dark to light mathematically, just like a lifeless computer program. It adds nothing and in some cases obscures much. Shameful. This is still the best collection of Coker's art for Mad, though. Too bad.
<< 1 >>
| 
