Steve Ditko

[SignatureSelect]

I purchase signed letters if they are from people of interest.

[PeasOfCrap]

he is awsome! hahahH!

 

I sent him a letter asking him to sign my Marvel Masterworks Spider-man when it was new in the 90's. He sent a letter saying that he didn't have time to honor such requests, but took a full hand-written page to say it.

[MutantKeys]

I have his number and his address as well. Lives in the city. I won't even bother trying to get an autograph though because as people have stated eariler, money won't even change his stance on not signing. What else do we have :shrug: I might swing by to say what's up though... I might bring my little cousin. She's 5. I wonder if he'll reject a kid

[CollectingStanLee]

I didn't know he turned down movie money. That's very odd. I think Ditko suffers from a lack of perspective, just my humble opinion. We're talking about art, not a cure for cancer.

 

Also, Ditko having a screw loose is not a negative statement about Stan Lee. It's a known fact that Stan Lee conceived of Spider-Man, handed the task of drawing him to Jack Kirby, was unsatisfied with the results, then took the task to Steve Ditko. Ditko worked for Lee at a time when the work made for hire system did not allow artists to have any creative control over their work. The creative control fell to Stan Lee. When Lee refused Ditko's objections over creative direction, Ditko quit, as if it were going to make some real difference in the world over who the identity of the Green Goblin was. When Romita picked up the art for Spider-Man, that title was able to surpass the Fantastic Four as Marvel's number one seller, so Lee's instincts, which were honed over 20 years of editing and writing at that point turned out to be correct. It's too bad Romita didn't get to draw him in the first place.

 

There is no doubt that Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and the other artists contributed greatly to the comic books we know and love. But if you want to see the value of Stan Lee's contribution, just look at how many great and memorable characters Kirby and Ditko created on their own. Pretty much a zero. Now I know there is deep controversy and animosity about these subjects, so I'm not trying to start an opinion war. I didn't know how deep the issues were with Ditko. If Ditko would rather isolate himself from those of us who appreciate his contribution, then I suppose we have to respect his privacy. But let's not suggest that others are to blame for Ditko's rather unique perspective on things.

[Big Daddy]

I have his number and his address as well. Lives in the city. I won't even bother trying to get an autograph though because as people have stated eariler, money won't even change his stance on not signing. What else do we have :shrug: I might swing by to say what's up though... I might bring my little cousin. She's 5. I wonder if he'll reject a kid

 

If you would, could you PM me his info Danny? I'd like to send him a X-mas holiday card which I'm sure he gets tons of.

[Kevin Boyd]

Blake Bell, who recently had the book Strange and Stranger: The Worlds of Steve Ditko recently published offered a fair amount of insight on Steve based on his interactions with him and his discussions with the people that know him well.

 

Steve is not likely to do signings or public appearances because he's cynical about the motivations of individuals - he's been burned before by people professing love for his work and their subsequent actions clash with his personal philosophies of Randian objectivism.

 

His job is to produce art, not revisit old work and embrace our nostalgic love or like for the work he has done in the past. That stuff was completed, sold and has gone out the door. If you are a fan of Steve Ditko, the artist, he thinks you should buy his new work thru Robin Snyder and hopefully you will understand how he feels about comics, history, art and the truth. He has expressed those ideas clearly there, he feels there is no need for him to have a personal connection with you - because people are disingenuous. Their actions do not match their words.

 

Original Art is a hot button topic for him. He has, in the past, complained that artwork he did for publishers was not returned to him, as that is his property and while he has not sold any originals, he feels that he is the only person that does have the right to do so - the artist. Publishers only have a right to use the art as stipulated in the contract. Any originals that are out there are from allocations made to inkers or what was stolen from the Marvel warehouse or some rare items he chose to give to fans when he did connect with fans through fanzines. Ditko has carefully catalogued every piece of OA he has done - he knows EXACTLY who he gave each and every piece of OA to and when, and what wasn't returned to him. He will not sign "stolen" artwork, and expects that since it is his property, that it should be given back to him. I've seen Neal Adams react the same way when presented with a stolen page of art. This to me, says that he does care about OA.

 

The following paragraph has been re-edited as the original had errors: The AF15 artwork may be a different beast entirely. The person who had it contacted him and after talking to him and him indicating he didn't want it back (see response further down in this thread), decided to give it to the Library of Congress.

 

As for the rejection of fan requests... the fanzines of the 1970's were basically offered the opportunity to print new Ditko stories, but they had time constrictions and were required to return the originals. Some took advantage - either not printing the story as promised and/or not returning the originals as requested - many of those originals have been subsequently been made available for sale. Hence his suspicions of drop-ins and unsolicited letters with requests. In every case, the person dropping in or writing to him wants something from him --- a sketch, an autograph, an interview, even just to thank him for how his work has changed their lives.

 

For a time he did consider endorsing publisher originated materials, such as when Eclipse was putting together a retrospective book. He was going to sign the tip-in plate on a limited number of copies. Then things fell apart, and he decided that even that wasn't worth doing in the future.

[MedicAR]

I didn't know he turned down movie money. That's very odd. I think Ditko suffers from a lack of perspective, just my humble opinion. We're talking about art, not a cure for cancer.

 

Also, Ditko having a screw loose is not a negative statement about Stan Lee. It's a known fact that Stan Lee conceived of Spider-Man, handed the task of drawing him to Jack Kirby, was unsatisfied with the results, then took the task to Steve Ditko. Ditko worked for Lee at a time when the work made for hire system did not allow artists to have any creative control over their work. The creative control fell to Stan Lee. When Lee refused Ditko's objections over creative direction, Ditko quit, as if it were going to make some real difference in the world over who the identity of the Green Goblin was. When Romita picked up the art for Spider-Man, that title was able to surpass the Fantastic Four as Marvel's number one seller, so Lee's instincts, which were honed over 20 years of editing and writing at that point turned out to be correct. It's too bad Romita didn't get to draw him in the first place.

 

There is no doubt that Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and the other artists contributed greatly to the comic books we know and love. But if you want to see the value of Stan Lee's contribution, just look at how many great and memorable characters Kirby and Ditko created on their own. Pretty much a zero. Now I know there is deep controversy and animosity about these subjects, so I'm not trying to start an opinion war. I didn't know how deep the issues were with Ditko. If Ditko would rather isolate himself from those of us who appreciate his contribution, then I suppose we have to respect his privacy. But let's not suggest that others are to blame for Ditko's rather unique perspective on things.

 

I've always thought that the sum of Marvel's original creative teams was great than its parts. None of the creators, Kirby, Ditko, Lee, etc. have experienced the success they had at Marvel since the silver age. Ravage 2099? Shade, The Changing Man? Silver Star? Whatever happened at Marvel in the 60's was amazing. Also, keep in mind that Stan Lee was work for hire at the time as well. It wasn't just artists, it was writers too. I've never been comfortable with the idea that Stan Lee was solely responsible for making Marvel as we know it. The Challengers of the Unknown bear a striking resemblance to the Fantastic Four, is it coincidence that Jack Kirby drew both?

 

That being said, Mr. Ditko doesn't "have a screw loose" and if he did, it wouldn't be Stan Lee's fault. What it all comes down to is what one considers the definition of "creating a character" to be. Stan Lee may have came up with the concept of Spider-Man, but without the artists' contributions, it would be just a guy that sticks to walls and is pretty strong. Ditko came up with a costume and a "look" that is instantly recognizable as Spider-Man.

 

Ultimately it is a collaboration of writer and artist that truly creates a character. Mr. Lee didn't have total creative control, both he and the artist had input. The "Marvel Method" of comic creation demonstrates this. Stan Lee and the artist would come up with a rough story, the artist would lay it out and get it approved. Then, the artist would go back and finish it properly. Once finished, it went back to Mr. Lee where he added the dialog, then off to the letterer (and possibly inker) where it was completed, checked again and sent to the printer. Both were involved in the writing, so both were involved in the creation.

 

I don't dislike Stan Lee, I recognize his input in the creation of Marvel as we know it and love him for it! I also recognize that he has a personality that attracts people. He's fun to listen to, and can entertain one or two people or a room of hundreds of people. That's what made him an incredible spokesperson for Marvel. Unfortunately, he began to believe his own hype at some point, and with a failing memory, has just taken credit for everything, whether that's accurate or not.

[Kevin Boyd]

I didn't know he turned down movie money. That's very odd. I think Ditko suffers from a lack of perspective, just my humble opinion. We're talking about art, not a cure for cancer.

 

Also, Ditko having a screw loose is not a negative statement about Stan Lee. It's a known fact that Stan Lee conceived of Spider-Man, handed the task of drawing him to Jack Kirby, was unsatisfied with the results, then took the task to Steve Ditko. Ditko worked for Lee at a time when the work made for hire system did not allow artists to have any creative control over their work. The creative control fell to Stan Lee. When Lee refused Ditko's objections over creative direction, Ditko quit, as if it were going to make some real difference in the world over who the identity of the Green Goblin was. When Romita picked up the art for Spider-Man, that title was able to surpass the Fantastic Four as Marvel's number one seller, so Lee's instincts, which were honed over 20 years of editing and writing at that point turned out to be correct. It's too bad Romita didn't get to draw him in the first place.

 

There is no doubt that Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and the other artists contributed greatly to the comic books we know and love. But if you want to see the value of Stan Lee's contribution, just look at how many great and memorable characters Kirby and Ditko created on their own. Pretty much a zero. Now I know there is deep controversy and animosity about these subjects, so I'm not trying to start an opinion war. I didn't know how deep the issues were with Ditko. If Ditko would rather isolate himself from those of us who appreciate his contribution, then I suppose we have to respect his privacy. But let's not suggest that others are to blame for Ditko's rather unique perspective on things.

 

I think it's a little more complex -- Ditko WAS given complete control over Spider-Man during the last year or so he was on the strip. Stan dialogued the strip, and they clashed over that. I do think Stan was more than willing to step back and let Steve do his thing on Spider-Man because it was obviously working. But Steve's growing Randian beliefs started to creep into the strip during the campus scenes and they did clash over who should be the Goblin. From Ditko's POV that wasn't up to Stan - these were his stories and his character and the company, and Stan, was obviously working with a successful property, so why mess with success. Stan tried to assert control over the strip again - which he did have the right to do as editor, and, as was Ditko's right, he had the right to reject that interference and walk. It wasn't about the Goblin, it never was. It was about not taking a step backwards creatively. It's like giving a director "final cut" and then yanking it away because you don't like his choices. Everyone involved with Spider-Man right afterwards thought he would return to the strip, that he was still given a tremendous amount of freedom on the book and that he would eventually see that and come back. He didn't.

 

As for the creator/creation thing. Sure, Stan created the name Spider-Man and the teen element, but Ditko's argument is that all that he did for the chracter - costume, powers, supporting cast, villains, even the stories - those were his. He was given a name by Stan and told he should be a young hero. It obviously still bothers him to see Stan take credit for the elements that he created. I don't fully agree with either Stan or Steve, it was Stan's basic idea but Steve did conceive of the elements that make Spider-Man unique. Stan still had to agree to all of this as the EIC, and he still added the punchy dialogue that made the strip stand out.

[MedicAR]

As for the creator/creation thing. Sure, Stan created the name Spider-Man and the teen element, but Ditko's argument is that all that he did for the chracter - costume, powers, supporting cast, villains, even the stories - those were his. He was given a name by Stan and told he should be a young hero. It obviously still bothers him to see Stan take credit for the elements that he created. I don't fully agree with either Stan or Steve, it was Stan's basic idea but Steve did conceive of the elements that make Spider-Man unique. Stan still had to agree to all of this as the EIC, and he still added the punchy dialogue that made the strip stand out.

 

I would say that's fair. I haven't read either version of who did what for sometime, but this rings true to me.

 

As I'm so fond of saying, the whole was greater than the sum of it's parts when it came to Marvel in the Silver Age......

[Mutant Manatee]

Just for the sake of accuracy, the original art to Amazing Fantasy #15 was donated to the Library of Congress, not the Smithsonian.

 

From everything I've read, the anonymous person who possessed the pages first offered them to Steve Ditko, and was met with the curt reply, "Not interested". The anonymous owner then decided on his own to donate the pages to the Library of Congress. Nothing I've seen indicates that Ditko was involved in that decision. When the Chicago Tribune contacted Ditko about his reaction to the donation of the artwork, his only comment was , "I couldn't care less".

[Kevin Boyd]

I would say that's fair. I haven't read either version of who did what for sometime, but this rings true to me.

 

As I'm so fond of saying, the whole was greater than the sum of it's parts when it came to Marvel in the Silver Age......

 

I think the same thing holds true with Kirby and Lee on FF, Thor and the other strips they did together. We all know about the Marvel method, but from what I've read and heard about the way that Lee/Kirby and Lee/Ditko worked, as time went on, both Kirby and Ditko felt they didn't need Lee's involvement in the plotting of the stories and left him to being the guy that wrote the punchy and/or flowery (in the case of Thor) dialogue. They dropped off completed issues at the offices with their thoughts on dialogue expressed in the margins (avoiding calls and/or meetings with Stan) and then Lee did his thing.

 

I did hear directly from Stan at a signing that the only thing he insisted on having more control over was on the covers and no problem sending back covers he didn't think worked.

[Kevin Boyd]

Just for the sake of accuracy, the original art to Amazing Fantasy #15 was donated to the Library of Congress, not the Smithsonian.

 

From everything I've read, the anonymous person who possessed the pages first offered them to Steve Ditko, and was met with the curt reply, "Not interested". The anonymous owner then decided on his own to donate the pages to the Library of Congress. Nothing I've seen indicates that Ditko was involved in that decision. When the Chicago Tribune contacted Ditko about his reaction to the donation of the artwork, his only comment was , "I couldn't care less".

 

Thanks for the correction. Based on what I know of Ditko's OA tracking, I'm surprised that he would say "not interested", unless he was disappointed or even angry with the person for other reasons (like holding onto the art and not telling him about it, or selling some of the other pieces they also had taken from the warehouse over the years). In his objectionist pov they should not have liberated it at all - they should have taken special care to have the artwork returned to him (which just may not have been an option at that time), that taking it to preserve it and then keeping it was stealing. That "everyone else" was stealing pages from the warehouse during those times wouldn't be an acceptable excuse - they are equally wrong because bad is bad, no matter what the reasoning. I probably gave him more credit in the decision to donate it to the Library of Congress than I should have, I think that was probably the person who had the artwork's decision to make up for taking it - that if Ditko didn't want it, the next best place would be in a museum - it wouldn't be right to profit from that specific lot.

 

"I couldn't care less" is his standard reply to all interview requests.

 

[mackenzie999]

Both of the 'do not sign autographs" notes sound way better than any autograph. A name is a name, but those show his personality.

[JazzMan]

I sent him a letter asking him to sign my Marvel Masterworks Spider-man when it was new in the 90's. He sent a letter saying that he didn't have time to honor such requests, but took a full hand-written page to say it.

 

[CollectingStanLee]

This sure turned out to be a hot topic. Thanks Kevin for filling in some details on the history. One fact that often gets obscured is how difficult the comic book industry was, how difficult it was to squeeze out profit from a 12 cent mag, with artists being sensitive and a publisher trying to keep a solid bottom line. I asked Stan about that once because I realized that in all the interviews I've read and seen, he never complained about how tough that business really was. He said with a smile, "What good does complaining do?"

 

Whatever inequities existed in the system at the time, Stan wasn't responsible for them because as Kevin pointed out, he was also a work-made-for-hire employee. It's true that Stan was more successful at self-promotion and that Marvel would not have been what it was without Kirby (not so sure about Ditko), but it doesn't minimize the fact that Stan was the showman, ringmaster, and impetus for what they accomplished. Ditko didn't hire Stan to write a story about a teenager who gets bitten by a spider.

 

Kevin, not to be disagreeable with you because you clearly have an amazing knowledge of all these issues, but it sounded like you were making Ditko sound rational. While he has every right to despise his fans if he so chooses, in my book, that doesn't make him a superior human being. It makes him rather small, in my opinion, regardless of whatever philosophy or thinking brings him to that point. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a guy who collects comic books.

 

 

[Kevin Boyd]

This sure turned out to be a hot topic. Thanks Kevin for filling in some details on the history. One fact that often gets obscured is how difficult the comic book industry was, how difficult it was to squeeze out profit from a 12 cent mag, with artists being sensitive and a publisher trying to keep a solid bottom line. I asked Stan about that once because I realized that in all the interviews I've read and seen, he never complained about how tough that business really was. He said with a smile, "What good does complaining do?"

 

Whatever inequities existed in the system at the time, Stan wasn't responsible for them because as Kevin pointed out, he was also a work-made-for-hire employee. It's true that Stan was more successful at self-promotion and that Marvel would not have been what it was without Kirby (not so sure about Ditko), but it doesn't minimize the fact that Stan was the showman, ringmaster, and impetus for what they accomplished. Ditko didn't hire Stan to write a story about a teenager who gets bitten by a spider.

 

Kevin, not to be disagreeable with you because you clearly have an amazing knowledge of all these issues, but it sounded like you were making Ditko sound rational. While he has every right to despise his fans if he so chooses, in my book, that doesn't make him a superior human being. It makes him rather small, in my opinion, regardless of whatever philosophy or thinking brings him to that point. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a guy who collects comic books.

 

 

I'm trying to rationalize his point of view as I've had some small experience working with creators that people have subsequently labelled crazy, irrational and small-minded. There are many similarities between Ditko and Sim, and Sim's pov has helped me understand Ditko a little more clearly.

 

Most of us are approaching this from a fan's point of view, that we enjoyed the comics and respect the work and we would get some enjoyment from having that person sign a prized possession. I would love to get him to sign a Marvel Masterworks for my personal collection.

 

On the other hand, we are talking about a commercial artist working in a commercial art form. I have some sympathy for people working within the comics industry because it not a healthy work environment and that if you let certain things bother you you'll really grow to despise it - and clearly certain things really bothered Ditko.

 

When it comes to the end of the Lee/Ditko partnership I completely understand why it fell apart and I can appreciate and sympathize with both sides of the argument. I don't see the fault in either man's point of view. I do kind of disagree with Stan taking full credit for creating Spider-Man, and I understand why Ditko doesn't like Stan's later statements that since "he (Ditko) wanted to be co-creator, I (Stan Lee) said it's okay - he (Ditko) can be the co-creator, that's good with me (Stan Lee)" because it comes across as being generousity (and kind of pompous) instead of fact. Facts (aka the truth), really mean a lot to Ditko --- much more than anything to do with being labelled Co-Creator of Spider-Man (which he is referred to, no matter what Stan says).

 

When it comes to the 'no autographs kid' policy, I can see that it is entirely formed by abuses the man experienced in the past and a healthy avoidance of repeating that kind of scenario. Ultimately, experience has made him into a cranky old shut-in. He doesn't trust people - despise is kind of extreme as he has softened when people don't want something from him other than to say hello and thanks (but only after actively seeking him out and getting past the defensiveness). It's still kind of sad in my opinion.

[CollectingStanLee]

Yes, I agree with most of what you said. However, I will defend Stan. When Trump builds a building, he employs, designers, architects, workmen, etc., all of whom contribute greatly to the finished product. But who created it? That might be subject to debate, but Trump puts his name on the building and never talks about these people. Trump doesn't need permission from the architect to take credit for creating the building. This metaphor is not exact to comic books, but not completely off either. Ditko was hired to do the art for Spider-Man. In doing so, he embellished the creation with some good ideas and a distinctive look for the character. Never-the-less, the character was, in my opinion, created by Stan, who then hired Ditko to draw him. I think ultimately, he is being generous by sharing credit. If Ditko hadn't been available, Stan would have chosen another artist to work on Spider-Man. Would it have been as successful? We'll never know. That's my opinion, I realize there are other opinions.

 

You also correctly pointed out that it was a commercial art form. It was viewed more as a product than a work of art with cultural value, and this is also reflected in the methods used to produce it. Stan didn't micro-manage the subsequent issues of Spider-Man because he was 1, too busy with everything else, and 2, that is generally not how Marvel was producing comic books (as you pointed out).

 

You know far more than me about how the comic book industry has been for the artists who worked in that industry, but one thing I've noticed is that many of these guys, Stan, Joe Simon, Ditko, etc. are living to a quite advanced age. I wonder if there is a link?

 

 

[Kevin Boyd]

By the reasoning you've given, we should actually be praising Martin Goodman for everything related to Marvel since he gave the green light to all of this. He's the Donald Trump in this scenario, Stan was just his second in command and the guy running the company for him at that time. Stan still had to get approval to run those initial superhero stories from Goodman. In fact, we could credit DC for creating the Marvel Universe, for if JLA hadn't been a hit their exec wouldn't have bragged about it to Goodman at a golf game and he wouldn't have pushed Stan to organize another superhero revival led by a revision of Kirby's Challengers idea meshed with a little Marvel monsters and a young version of a Golden Age Timely character.

 

I stand by the co-creator point. While I do consider Stan the architect of the Marvel Universe for putting the elements together, I don't think it diminishes him to be seen as the co-creator of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange with Ditko, and the co-creator of the FF, Thor, The Hulk and others with Kirby. The FF would not have been the same without Kirby, Spider-Man without Ditko and so forth. They were collaborative efforts - one doesn't exist without the other.

[CollectingStanLee]

I agree with you, especially in the case of Jack Kirby, that co-creator status does not diminish Stan Lee. The one thing you do have to be careful about is to not create a sense of a relationship that never existed. People use the word co-creator and partner to suggest an equality that was not there. They didn't work as partners or as equals. The artists were hired to do a job. They brought a lot of skill and talent to that job, and anyone who makes the point that the Marvel universe wouldn't have been the same without Kirby gets no argument from me, but it was still a job. Ditko is bitter because he is confused about that relationship.

 

Now if you make a separate point about fairness, as in were any of these people, including Stan, fairly compensated for their work? By today's standards, no. But as we all know, it was a different system back then. That leads us to everyone's favorite villain, Martin Goodman. I have no interest in defending him, other than to reiterate that he was a businessman in a time when the creative input was valued less than it is now. Just remember that to run a business it takes risk and courage. With no Goodman, you have no Marvel, not sure you can say the same about Ditko.

 

 

 

 

[MedicAR]

I sent him a letter asking him to sign my Marvel Masterworks Spider-man when it was new in the 90's. He sent a letter saying that he didn't have time to honor such requests, but took a full hand-written page to say it.

 

 

Yup. But what can I say?