Cloak & Dagger, Rick Leonardi, and Comics' Last Great Age

Okay, for those just joining, this is the conversation: Rick Leonardi is a fantastic artist too few know of or discuss and he drew a series too few remember called Cloak & Dagger - both are among my favorite things in all of comics; Cloak and Dagger are now part of a team called "Dark X-Men."

And let me say this about that: they are a perfect fit as "dark" X-Men. Tandy Bowen and Tyrone Someone (I can't remember it, my Cloak & Dagger comics are in the bottom of the bedroom closet, and the Marvel Universe hasn't listed the article yet) were runaways who were kidnapped and experimented on by drug-dealers who were looking to street a new addictive substance. The experiments mutated them into Cloak & Dagger. Their powers work together in a symbiotic sense, in that Cloak "feeds" on "light" (as in the good and positive in people) and Tandy is the embodiment of such; Dagger feeds Cloak, which keeps the Darkness from consuming him totally. Their backstory and characters make them excellent candidates because it all fits perfectly with the X-Men and the whole "Dark" nonsense.

But what I wanted to discuss was Leonardi's work and why I feel it was so good: the quality of the printing in comics then.

Let me go on record as saying if anyone out there wants to do it, I am 100% for purchasing some of the older printing presses comics used to be manufactured on and making a go of it; these new "magazine-style" comic books (called "slicks" throughout the writing/magazine industry specifically in reference to their appearance) are at least some-odd percentage to fault for the lack of excitement and fun in the field today. The quality of the paper is simply too much for comic books and no one working in the field has discovered a method which capitalizes on it yet. Rick Veitch's work looks fantastic on slick paper, but (IMO) pretty shitty under the old process; no one else's work looks good under the new process - no one's.

Some pop-artist did a series of well-known paintings based on comic books back in the 80s. His expression dealt with romantic themes, not superheroes, and the entire point of the series was the Pointilist effect comic books used to have because they used toner for color and shading. The absence of superheroes was far from the only aspect which made the point, and that fact was hardly even noticeable; the point was the dots (toner) and the line styling. Further, it was testament to his observation that the process changed only a few years later. I should find out who the artist was and highlight the series, because it was extremely important in bringing comic books into mainstream Art conversations. My lack of direct knowledge and digressions renders this point moot, but let's just say that, when a fine artist decided to highlight comic book art as a style within the Fine Arts, his expression was specific in its focus on word balloons, solid line art, and toner coloring.

Comic books are now colored by computer and the process really is more mechanical than is necessary, leaving a lot to be desired. While the coloring is far more realistic and some truly incredible efforts have been achieved, by and large, it has been to the detriment of the form. Working with toner is a real pain in the ass, but it is so worth it when it's done well! Now more than ever, the use of toner is an artistic decision playing into the artist's style, and too few use it anymore (myself included, though I've never used it).

My personal take on this is that too many artists overdraw. This is all Image's fault - the whole thing - right down the line! They moved to computerized processes and slick paper because they wanted to be able to render in more "detail" (read: crosshatch the shit out of everything on the page). But it doesn't have to be such a wreck; too many artists in the field start out as fans and they're all going by what their favorites did before them.

The key to working on slick paper is less line art, not more; leave the details to the colorists. Not only can computers render them better, they will also achieve the photo-realism so many are going for. The cover for War of Kings #2 is a good example (included). Cover artist Brandon Peterson used solid lines and left the detailing to the colors; no crosshatching or other line-art shading techniques were used (though he may have used wash). The result is a phenomenal piece of cover art, though I've no idea if that level of quality could be achieved throughout an entire book - certainly not a monthly (not on a regular basis, I'm saying). Still, that is what we should be striving for when working on slick paper.

Leonardi is a master, period. That's why he's so often a fill-in artist; he can do what needs to be done and get it done on time. However, his work literally OWNED back on the lesser-quality paper - as did many of his contemporaries'. I'm sure some of it has to do with the fact that not only were they comfortable with the paper quality and printing process, but had learned from peers who were, too. The next generation of comic book artists are going to be ten times better than we are today for the same reason: they'll have our work to go by.

So: Cloak & Dagger are a great fit for a Dark X-Men team, but no one will ever be able to render them like Rick Leonardi (who is an occasional fill-in on Uncanny - or was) and slick paper sucks for comics.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009