Wait, now it's just "Overtly emulates?"

Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached the point in the argument where allen begins to soften his terms to appear more reasonable.

We've gone from sleazebags copying elements with no conscience from other artists, to now merely overtly emulating.

Some might argue "overtly emulates," is much closer in meaning to the term "obvious influences" which several of us, myself included have used to describe Cooke's work. Closer in meaning than allen's original argumentative sleazebag, copier, with no conscience crap, to be sure.

"Overtly emulates," is a perfectly reasonable statement, one that some probably would have agreed with, certainly more defensible than and nothing like, sleazebag, copier, with no conscience.

When you call an established and widely well-regarded professional artist someone who "overtly emulates" the work of others, it doesn't really matter what your background is.

When you call them a "piece of shit" and other various smears, it becomes perfectly legitimate to call your own qualifications, or lack thereof, into question. For example, there's a big difference between, say Dave Gibbons calling Cooke a "piece of shit" for being overtly emulative and the same character assassination coming from a nobody like you.

And you keep inching me closer to feeling sorry for you, Allen, because you obviously don't think too highly of your own "art" to be so fearful of letting people see it.

Mike

I like Darwyn Cooke's art. I wish he was working on something different though.

And just to shortcut any more of Allen's excuses...



You used your own artwork to defend your insults of Cooke. Let's see it.

Mike

I was merely broadening the terminology to fit a more concise sentence. But if you want more to read:

Please explain how a demonstration of my artistic abilities (or lack thereof) with posting something in this thread or by setting up a DeviantArt page would in any way negate the fact that Darwyn Cooke steals formal construction elements from Bruce Timm (stolen in turn from Alex Toth and Jack Kirby) and copies inking techniques from Milton Caniff.



Then by all means feel free to not reply.

That's a bit of stretch.


The monkey doesn't tell the organ grinder to dance.

I don't feel like going to look for it (thus giving you time to scrub it), but I do seem to recall some instances of you in your IMDB fan reviews telling moviemakers to "go to hell" and such. So I ask again: Please remind us of how many movies you've made?

No one is asking that question. Nice straw man though, good try.

You were attempting to make the argument that any obvious influence is not just a failure of the artist but is copying elements with no conscience from other artists.

When pressed that you draw a pretty solid line, no obvious influences, I stated "no artist is without influence," you yourself offered your work up for review when you responded by asking...

How can we do that if you don't show us your stuff???

I only offered the DA page as an option for you when you complained about the place you had previously used...
I recommended a Deviant Art site because its free, and easy to use plus, you wouldn't be out of place, there is a wide variety artists of varying talent and experience. Lots of beginners. And you might benefit from some peer criticism, maybe even get some helpful pointers.

Actually that's that's the most reasonable thing I've seen you post.

No. "Overtly emulating" is not a broader term that could ever even be confused as meaning the same as, sleazebags copying elements with no conscience from other artists.

"Overtly emulating" is closer to "obvious influences" like I've been saying. Thanks for agreeing with me. Certainly much much closer than it is to what you've been arguing, that artists like Cooke are, sleazebags copying elements with no conscience from other artists.