I became known that in a webpage called Progressive Boink, forty of Rob!’s art pieces had been criticized under simplistic and squared standars. As an adlater it’s my moral duty to unite my companions in their brave defense of the most brilliant genious ever.
Let’s refute their points one by one. The first is:
Welcome to the 90s! Guns, swords, and long hair. Is it any wonder that it took so long for comic books to be a socially-acceptable artistic medium? If Jack Kirby is the Thomas Edison of comics, Rob Liefeld is the Al Jolson. Except I think Al Jolson could draw pretty well."
No, it’s not any wonder because Rob! challenged in such a way the artistic conventions that it took a some years and all seasons from Lost for the mainstream to get remotely near His! vision. That’s why the comparation makes no sense, while Jolson ended up receiving love from the great public, Rob! still hasn’t.
Let’s see the next paragraph:
I really cannot get over how enormous Rob tends to draw his male characters. Really, they’re so over muscled and a stereotype of a stereotype that they just end up looking like weird wrinkly fatasses. All the pouches and half-shirts ain’t helpin either.
The error is very clear: Rob! in just a character is warning us against the dangers related with health and image. Obesity, vigorexia and anorexia (represented in the extreme slimness of the inferior half of his left leg) sometimes have psycological causes, shown on Shatterstars expression of unbearable suffering (maybe his name is yet
another clue about these social problems).
And, finally, there is the last paragraph:
If I had a nickel for every time Liefeld had his characters standing behind something so he didn’t have to draw their feet, I would still not have nearly as much money as Rob Liefeld.
Envy! Avarice! These, and not any others, are the real reasons behind Progressive Boink critism. Case closed.