Game: GOLDEN AGE BEST ARTIST SURVIVOR SERIES: Round 2

[rza808]

Nice covers, is that Robinson?

[CAP Freak]

Yes The Batman I think is a combination of Robinson and Fred Ray.

[tth2]

This is all very nice academic discussion, but meanwhile no one can actually vote for anything.

[goldust40]

This is all very nice academic discussion, but meanwhile no one can actually vote for anything.

 

For some reason I couldn't vote when the poll was active either. Guess the poll don't like me....

[greggy]

This is all very nice academic discussion, but meanwhile no one can actually vote for anything.

 

For some reason I couldn't vote when the poll was active either. Guess the poll don't like me....

The poll isn't alone

[goldust40]

This is all very nice academic discussion, but meanwhile no one can actually vote for anything.

 

For some reason I couldn't vote when the poll was active either. Guess the poll don't like me....

The poll isn't alone

We can't all be the forum mascot, y'know....

[rjpb]

Yes The Batman I think is a combination of Robinson and Fred Ray.

 

Robinson did a lot of nice covers and splashes, but his panel to panel art always seemed pretty conventional and undynamic.

[Weird Paper]

the list as it should be....

 

Frank Frazetta

Al Williamson

Wally Wood

Jack Davis

Graham Ingels

Al Feldstein

Harvey Kurtzman

Jack Kamen

Will Eisner

Lou Fine

Reed Crandall

Jack Cole

Matt Baker

Russ Heath

Bill Everett

Jack Kirby

Basil Wolverton

Alex Toth

Mac Raboy

Alex Schomburg

LB Cole

Carl Barks

Walt Kelly

Joe Kubert

 

 

I would give an honorable mention to Shuster, Kane, Beck, DeCarlo, Burgos, Nodell, Moldoff, and other great creators of the Golden Age. But if we are talking pure quality of art, these guys are left off. I have also left off the strip guys due to the backlash on here. Perhaps we should do a restart with this revised list.

 

I think it's hasty to dismiss Moldoff that quickly. Look back at the early All-Stars (Hawkman), and at his All-American and Flash covers. This guy was a much better artist, at the time, than most of his pals at DC. I would say his rendering was better than Schomburg, and easily equal to Crandall and Williamson. Don't think of the simplistic style he adopted later on--that was just a product of the era--the early stuff is primo.

 

Also, on Wally Wood, depending on his interest level and state of mind, his work could be every bit as bad as it could be good (See Dorothy Lamour, Jungle Princess, or is it Sabu--I don't have them with me right now, but I remember one or both of them as being terrible).

 

The tough thing about this sort of list is that it's sooo subjective, and everybody is making judgements based on different criteria. Is it historical significance (Kirby, Everett, Eisner)? Is it genuine artistic skills (Frazetta, Fine)? Is it composition and storytelling ability (Eisner, Kelly, Toth, Jack Cole)? Is it defining a character flawlessly (Barks, Jack Cole, Kelly, Everett)? Is it defining a genre (Barks, Kubert, Ingels, Kirby)? Is it uniqueness of style (Fine, Barks, Wolverton, Kurzman)?

[Dale Roberts]

It is all of the above. You should consider all of it.

 

I think that is a generally unfair statement about Wally Wood. You can make that very same claim about just about every artist who has ever worked. Yes, all have good and bad work(especially Kirby). You judge it on the whole body though.

 

Besides most people have never read Dorothy Lamour, but almost all have read the classic Wally Wood ECs, and some of his other better work.

 

I didn't dismiss Moldoff. I gave him an honorable mention. I just don't consider him one of the top 25 artists of the Golden Age. He is probably in the next 5. Hey, you can't include everyone.

[Norrin_Radd]

This is all very nice academic discussion, but meanwhile no one can actually vote for anything.

 

The discussion is the important part anyway. (But perhaps someone should educated CAP FFreek on how to create a poll.)

 

I was reading some Vault of Horror last night and Graham Ingels' Old Witch stories continue to amaze. The artwork stands out far ahead of the pack, IMO.

[Weird Paper]

It is all of the above. You should consider all of it.

 

I think that is a generally unfair statement about Wally Wood. You can make that very same claim about just about every artist who has ever worked. Yes, all have good and bad work(especially Kirby). You judge it on the whole body though.

 

Besides most people have never read Dorothy Lamour, but almost all have read the classic Wally Wood ECs, and some of his other better work.

 

I didn't dismiss Moldoff. I gave him an honorable mention. I just don't consider him one of the top 25 artists of the Golden Age. He is probably in the next 5. Hey, you can't include everyone.

 

I'm not trying to be unfair to Wood. I think, though, if you are considering everything you are considering, then his bad work should be a strike against. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. I own originals by him. Still, a body of work includes the good and bad.

 

What is the cut-off point, since we're talking about Golden Age artists? Somebody like Kubert, whose definitive work really came in the Silver Age might be better suited for that island.

 

If you're truly talking Golden Age, then the EC artists belong on a different island, too, depending on how you define the age.

 

I'll still argue that Moldoff was a top ten Golden Age (pre-1948) artist. His work in some of those DC titles stands out like a fist-sized diamond in a bag of coal.

 

 

[Norrin_Radd]

If you're truly talking Golden Age, then the EC artists belong on a different island, too, depending on how you define the age.

 

I'd rather talk about a GA that includes EC artists.

[Dale Roberts]

Ingels is very under-rated in my opinion. He is the predecessor to most bronze and modern horror artists. Huge influence on Wrightson, Ploog, & Brunner, and no telling who else.

[Dale Roberts]

It is all of the above. You should consider all of it.

 

I think that is a generally unfair statement about Wally Wood. You can make that very same claim about just about every artist who has ever worked. Yes, all have good and bad work(especially Kirby). You judge it on the whole body though.

 

Besides most people have never read Dorothy Lamour, but almost all have read the classic Wally Wood ECs, and some of his other better work.

 

I didn't dismiss Moldoff. I gave him an honorable mention. I just don't consider him one of the top 25 artists of the Golden Age. He is probably in the next 5. Hey, you can't include everyone.

 

I'm not trying to be unfair to Wood. I think, though, if you are considering everything you are considering, then his bad work should be a strike against. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. I own originals by him. Still, a body of work includes the good and bad.

 

What is the cut-off point, since we're talking about Golden Age artists? Somebody like Kubert, whose definitive work really came in the Silver Age might be better suited for that island.

 

If you're truly talking Golden Age, then the EC artists belong on a different island, too, depending on how you define the age.

 

I'll still argue that Moldoff was a top ten Golden Age (pre-1948) artist. His work in some of those DC titles stands out like a fist-sized diamond in a bag of coal.

 

 

I think you are talking about YOUR personal preferences. I don't really know anyone else who would consider Moldoff top 10. Also, Joe Kuberts late golden age art is extremely good and very popular.

[Dale Roberts]

The amount of bad art by Wood is nothing in comparison to the amount of good art he did. For the purpose of this poll, ECs, pre-code, and atomic age books are Golden Age.

[Scrooge]

I'll still argue that Moldoff was a top ten Golden Age (pre-1948) artist. His work in some of those DC titles stands out like a fist-sized diamond in a bag of coal.

 

 

I think you are talking about YOUR personal preferences. I don't really know anyone else who would consider Moldoff top 10. Also, Joe Kuberts late golden age art is extremely good and very popular.

 

Let's put a face to this debate. Here's first pages from Moldoff's Hawkman in All-Star 2 and one page from All-Star 1 and then we'll see him in a story that probably wasn't as confortable for him as an artists from Wonder Woman # 1 -

[Weird Paper]

It is all of the above. You should consider all of it.

 

I think that is a generally unfair statement about Wally Wood. You can make that very same claim about just about every artist who has ever worked. Yes, all have good and bad work(especially Kirby). You judge it on the whole body though.

 

Besides most people have never read Dorothy Lamour, but almost all have read the classic Wally Wood ECs, and some of his other better work.

 

I didn't dismiss Moldoff. I gave him an honorable mention. I just don't consider him one of the top 25 artists of the Golden Age. He is probably in the next 5. Hey, you can't include everyone.

 

I'm not trying to be unfair to Wood. I think, though, if you are considering everything you are considering, then his bad work should be a strike against. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. I own originals by him. Still, a body of work includes the good and bad.

 

What is the cut-off point, since we're talking about Golden Age artists? Somebody like Kubert, whose definitive work really came in the Silver Age might be better suited for that island.

 

If you're truly talking Golden Age, then the EC artists belong on a different island, too, depending on how you define the age.

 

I'll still argue that Moldoff was a top ten Golden Age (pre-1948) artist. His work in some of those DC titles stands out like a fist-sized diamond in a bag of coal.

 

 

I think you are talking about YOUR personal preferences. I don't really know anyone else who would consider Moldoff top 10. Also, Joe Kuberts late golden age art is extremely good and very popular.

 

Well, gosh, yeah, I'm talking about MY personal preferences. My opinion is the only one I feel qualified to present. You, apparently, are comfortable speaking for everyone else. Swell gig. How do you get that job? Does omniscience come with that, or is it a prerequisite?

 

I realize that a thread like this has no value, other than to encourage education and debate. There is no prize at the end, no place in artist heaven for the winner. With that in mind, all any of us have to offer is our knowledge and opinions. Mine has no less value than yours. Nor has it any more value. Adam Strange, Ciorac and Mr Bedrock can vouch for the fact that I'm not Gomer Pyle with a box of funnybooks, but rather am mildly qualified to offer an educated opinion. An opinion. Nothing more.

 

I love Kubert's work, but his Golden Age work is hardly better or more significant than Moldoff's, or Murphy Anderson's, Bernard Baily's or Jack Burnley's for that matter.

 

If historical significance does play a part than there are artists may deserve consideration over Joe Kubert, Al Williamson, Alex Toth, Jack Kamen and perhaps others on your list.

[Weird Paper]

Let's put a face to this debate. Here's first pages from Moldoff's Hawkman in All-Star 2 and one page from All-Star 1 and then we'll see him in a story that probably wasn't as confortable for him as an artists from Wonder Woman # 1 -

 

Thanks Scrooge. I was hoping you'd jump in to offer some visual. Moldoff was truly a man among boys, art-wise, in the early days of DC.

[Scrooge]

Let's put a face to this debate. Here's first pages from Moldoff's Hawkman in All-Star 2 and one page from All-Star 1 and then we'll see him in a story that probably wasn't as confortable for him as an artists from Wonder Woman # 1 -

 

Thanks Scrooge. I was hoping you'd jump in to offer some visual. Moldoff was truly a man among boys, art-wise, in the early days of DC.

 

Glad I could oblige, WP (thumbs u

 

Next, I should post some of Robinson's work but I fear it's going to put a nail in his coffin ... that is, if these polls keep on getting starting. Paging Freek. Paging Freek.

[Paris_Fred]

 

Also, on Wally Wood, depending on his interest level and state of mind, his work could be every bit as bad as it could be good (See Dorothy Lamour, Jungle Princess, or is it Sabu--I don't have them with me right now, but I remember one or both of them as being terrible).

 

That's probably why he received 3 Comic Books Awards from the National Cartoonist Society: 1957, 1959, & 1964. (Comic books Award started in 1956)

 

PS. From your list you are missing the Judy Canova covers he did for Fox back in 1950