I can do better.

Go look it up.

 

I've seen people's art who are better.  

 

That's the point, I'm not that great of an artist, and I can do better.

 

A) It was a style popular at the time, and the stylized approach to what had been done before was fresh enough to resurrect transformers to comics. As I said it was popular even with Disney and it made for a fresh, bright, kiddy and optimist page with no hard angles even if what was depicted was violent.
B) Pat was known to be very fast at drawing, and he needed to hammer out a lot of poor compositions to get his ball rolling.

 

I was talking about better than Pat Lee. Not you.  

 

I've never understood this argument when people criticize something.

I can't do better. And that's why I'm not stupid enough to draw comics.

When people take on a job, and I don't care what it is, you have a responsibility to do that well. If you can't do it well, you get a new job.

I write software. If someone thinks my software blows, the proper response is not "WELL I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY HURRR". By putting something out the public can see, you open yourself to criticism. And if you care about your work (and you should), you need to learn how to take that criticism, if it's coming from your intended consumers, and learn how to better yourself and your output (in whatever form that might be) to better please though consumers.

As opposed to "Wow, this $25 meal I just paid for tasted like ass." "YEAH WELL I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU COOK SOMETHING!!!!"

 

I try not to critique people too harshly. I might suggest something, if it's helpful. But, not too often.

You can make money in comics if you're good. Depends on what you want to do as a career.

 

Exactly. I don't have to be a star cook just so I'm allowed to point out that the soup is salted.

 

That's strange, I distinctively remember the art of Herb Trimpe, Geoff Senior and Andrew Wildman being excessively superior to Pat Lee's.
Granted Dreamwave's colorists are leap and bounds ahead of Nel "PINK BACKGROUNDS EVERYWHERE" Yomtov but in regards to the pencils there were plenty of Marvel artists who did a much better job with Transformers that Funana.

 

Also worth noting is how the top view image of the truck is the same (horrible) drawing zoomed in closer.

 

Fixed.
True, you may be able to make money if you're good, but that's not really an argument for this thread, now is it?  

 

Nope, if you're good and can get your work out on time. Image comics helps new people out more than other companies.

 

Maybe it's just my armada nostalgia speaking, but I like his art.

 

I suppose I can see the underlying motivations for the misguided argument I'll call "No Better" (NB hereafter)
1. If you can't do better, then you should shut up.
2. You can't do better.
Therefore, you should shut up.

That's not a sound argument, since premise 1 is false, as xZaox provided the falsifying instance for the relevant conditional. But here's what I think they're really getting at. For the sake of a name, let's call it "The Argument from Minimal Considerateness for a Fellow Fan" (MC hereafter):

1. If PL is a fellow TF fan and you think his art is no good, you should provide constructive criticism and not rude jeers.
2. PL is a fellow fan and (as is obvious) you don't like his stuff.
Thus, you should etc.

People see the harshness of the criticisms--that is, the way in which they are delivered, not the content of the criticism--and they are turned off. So they rush to NB, which is the wrong argument. Now, you all have pointed out that NB is no good, and I have to agree: NB is unsound, but on the other hand MC makes sense. You don't have to buy his artwork, and you could explain why you think his work thus far is no good. But to use such harsh terms, well, that doesn't reflect well on the community and the criticism lacks the kind of support we should be giving fellow members of the fandom, regardless of whether they are paid for their work or not.

Now, if the fellow fan in question is himself a rude prick from the outset (I don't know if PL is this way, since I've seen little to no evidence of his personality--perhaps someone could give evidence one way or another), that might justify jerkiness in response. But then it's not so much about the creative endeavor, but the shitty displays themselves. Thus, one shouldn't *harshly* criticize or condemn a fellow TF fan's work.

 

You might want to go and check out some of Pat Lee's charming personality traits. He's fucked over just about anyone he's worked with. I think that justifies calling a spade a spade with regard to his "art."

 

You got me on the personality trait stuff, but I was prepared for that rebuttal. I still stand behind my claim that the *art itself* shouldn't be so harshly condemned. Let's call a spade what it is, he seems like a dick. That's fine. But here's what I was getting at: when people see how harsh fellow fans can be about someone's artwork, it makes them reluctant to want to share their own creative projects. (e.g., "Oh no," one might worry, "perhaps the tits on my Optimus are too perky. I'll just get laughed off the boards. I better not share my creative hobby with anyone.") And that kind of understandable inhibition could be altogether avoided if we just criticize the artwork in as emotionally-neutral language as possible.

Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't critique, but I just think that the fans should be a little nicer to each other when it comes to their creative projects, or even the creative projects that are attached to Hasbro itself (i.e., like some of the movie designs). I mean, geez, we're not all Josh Nizzis. But still, we might want to share some of the stuff we've been doing when we're not at our day jobs. Am I making sense?

EDIT: I just read the entire entry--not exactly an unbiased article, but if true, alls I can say is "DAMN".

 

Look at it this way; people don't like his art. We've established that. If he were known to be a nice bloke regardless, said critics may well critique his work in a civil manner, so as not to cause offence.
However, since as has been pointed out, he's actually something of a tosspiece, then the critics feel somewhat less inclined to restrain themselves, with no care as to whether he's offended or not.

[edit]And that article never stops being funny.  [/edit]

 

You know, I'm still totally in shock. DAMN, what a DICK!!!
...
OK, I needed to let it all be absorbed. I now see where everyone's coming from. Nevertheless, I was just trying to give an account of why people might be misguidedly lead to embrace the argument I called NB above, whereas they would do better to use MC. I still stand by that. To allow one's disgust for PL's character inform the delivery of one's criticism of art is a kind of ad hominem attack. Let's just agree that the art is not successful, that's fine by me. But then here's my next question: can't we just focus on the ways in which the work goes wrong (too much disproportionality) whereas other stylized TF artwork doesn't (one might suggest TFA, e.g., as an example of the right balance of disproportionality, by contrast). The incredibly harsh rhetoric we could all do without, at least when it comes to art in itself.

 

I should say, though, you made it clear, Ramrider, that you guys wouldn't be so harsh to a more innocently pure-of-heart TF fan, and that's really the important thing. But you guys probably don't want to have to repeat what you said every time you criticize PL's art. That's really a consequence of the account I'm trying to defend--that it's best to just avoid any potential misunderstandings, especially to newcomers to our community, right?