|> In <CLsqGF....@csc.ti.com> a130149@crazy (John Hall(0032 jvh )) writes:
|>
|> >Just reacting to your attack on Jim Aparo --  it wasn't always thus.
|> >His 70's work on Batman in Detective is adequate, and in mid-70's
|> >Brave and Bold work is rich and detailed, it a pity about his frozen
|> >faces, but these represent to me one of the classic faces of Batman.
|> >By no means the best, but classic.  You want to see terrible Batman,
|> >I reckon Infantino is as bad as it gets, and you can spot it a mile off
|> >like Aparo's.

Well, I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.  I love Infantino's
work on Batman in the 60's.  It wasn't the Dark Knight we're used to now, but
it was a real change and improvement.  I vividly remember the first _New Look_
story which opened up Gotham beautifully (and even has Batman holding a gun on
some thugs -- a little more reality than readers are willing to endure for
some reason).  The story that took place in the Scottish (?) castle, the
inevitable (for Infantino) ape story all are vividly impressed on my memory,
though I sold the issues years ago in a reckless fit of poverty.

My votes for lackluster Batman would be most of the current stable and Irv
Novick who seemed far superior in his war comics.  I wish Gene Day had more
time (for more reasons than this!) He brought such intelligence to his short
tenure.  Do others agree that the Swamp Thing Issue Number 5 qualifies Wrightson
as one of the great Batman artists.  Adams is the classic, I guess, and I think
Aparo's best work seemed heavily Adams-influenced.

As I said, I think the quality of most of the Batman titles now is regrettable
when you consider how important the title is.  Much different from the Superman
titles which have such consistently good art which manages to bring out a lot
of individual flourish

--
Tom Owens
MIT Library Systems Office
ow...@mit.edu
617-253-1618 voice 617-253-8894 fax