Stupid Black & White Drawings

[PrechterFool-migration]

The more I see of Terry's postings from past Russ Cochran auctions, the more I realize that the SIMPLICITY of these stupid black and white drawings is actually what makes them so appealing.

 

I have heard for decades that Comic OA is not fine art because it is just "production art", that isnt even in COLOR as the reason why comic art is "deficient"

 

I beg to disagree - the simplicity of these b&w drawings make the art that much more interesting and simple. They look EVEN BETTER on the wall of my loft then any colored version could ever hope.

[Bronty]

That's one way of looking at it... I don't personally agree.

 

It does make the art simpler and easier to understand, I guess, but if it were all color art you wouldn't be sitting there wishing it was b&w, trust me You'd be talking about how great and bright and colorful it all was.

 

Just enjoy it for what it is......... its b&w, that's fine, but that's not a selling point.... I don't see too many b&w comics on the shelves or any b&w art in a museum (well...almost none).

 

Color is one of the most important attributes of any work of art. Comic OA manages to be to relevant and inspiring to us despite that, and that's great, but let's not get it twisted.

[Speedy-D]

Some of the all-time great artists in the history of everything (Michelangelo, Rembrandt, DaVinci, etc.) have B&W drawings any sane person would trade an eyeball to be able to hang on their wall.

 

There's a lot to be said for black and white, and I say this as a person firmly in the comic-art-ain't-fine-art camp.

[Speedy-D]

I've got a magnet of this on my fridge.

 

[Bronty]

Some of the all-time great artists in the history of everything (Michelangelo, Rembrandt, DaVinci, etc.) have B&W drawings any sane person would trade an eyeball to be able to hang on their wall.

 

And you know what any sane person would trade an eyeball AND an arm for? A painting by one of the same artists you name.

 

[Speedy-D]

Some of the all-time great artists in the history of everything (Michelangelo, Rembrandt, DaVinci, etc.) have B&W drawings any sane person would trade an eyeball to be able to hang on their wall.

 

And you know what any sane person would trade an eyeball AND an arm for? A painting by one of the same artists you name.

O dude fully. If it was anyone else's body parts, I'd gladly trade them all!

Alls I'm saying is there's room for the killer B&W stuff. Actually, as a humble art student, I learned a lot more from drawings by the masters than from the Sistine Chapel or Last Supper.

 

Too bad Michelangelo never got to try his hand at comics...

 

 

...although I'd hate to be the guy who has to ink over that!

[Bronty]

I've got a magnet of this on my fridge.

 

 

A truly wonderful drawing. The artist is certainly far more important than the medium. That being said, a drawing has some inherent limitations. As in, it's black and white. No color.

 

Look comic OA is great and but let's not pretend that one of it's limitations is a strength just because we are fans of it and it's all we are used to seeing. Doing so is unfair to all the great artists that incorporate color into their work. In the comic arena BWS specifically is a master of the use of color. And so are many talented artists in other arenas.

[Speedy-D]

I've got a magnet of this on my fridge.

 

 

A truly wonderful drawing. The artist is certainly far more important than the medium. That being said, a drawing has some inherent limitations. As in, it's black and white. No color.

 

Look comic OA is great and but let's not pretend that one of it's limitations is a strength just because we are fans of it and it's all we are used to seeing. Doing so is unfair to all the great artists that incorporate color into their work. In the comic arena BWS specifically is a master of the use of color. And so are many talented artists in other arenas.

Word up! It's impossible to separate his pencils from his colors. They'd lose so much.

[Bronty]

Some of the all-time great artists in the history of everything (Michelangelo, Rembrandt, DaVinci, etc.) have B&W drawings any sane person would trade an eyeball to be able to hang on their wall.

 

And you know what any sane person would trade an eyeball AND an arm for? A painting by one of the same artists you name.

O dude fully. If it was anyone else's body parts, I'd gladly trade them all!

Alls I'm saying is there's room for the killer B&W stuff. Actually, as a humble art student, I learned a lot more from drawings by the masters than from the Sistine Chapel or Last Supper.

 

Too bad Michelangelo never got to try his hand at comics...

 

 

...although I'd hate to be the guy who has to ink over that!

 

Hahah well put

[Bronty]

I've got a magnet of this on my fridge.

 

 

A truly wonderful drawing. The artist is certainly far more important than the medium. That being said, a drawing has some inherent limitations. As in, it's black and white. No color.

 

Look comic OA is great and but let's not pretend that one of it's limitations is a strength just because we are fans of it and it's all we are used to seeing. Doing so is unfair to all the great artists that incorporate color into their work. In the comic arena BWS specifically is a master of the use of color. And so are many talented artists in other arenas.

Word up! It's impossible to separate his pencils from his colors. They'd lose so much.

 

Absolutely!!

[Speedy-D]

How much less would this be without the killer BWS colors...

 

 

...or this...

 

[Terry Doyle]

The more I see of Terry's postings from past Russ Cochran auctions, the more I realize that the SIMPLICITY of these stupid black and white drawings is actually what makes them so appealing.

 

I have heard for decades that Comic OA is not fine art because it is just "production art", that isnt even in COLOR as the reason why comic art is "deficient"

 

I beg to disagree - the simplicity of these b&w drawings make the art that much more interesting and simple. They look EVEN BETTER on the wall of my loft then any colored version could ever hope.

 

Not all comic art art is b&w. Over here, in the UK, the Dan Dare strip (which debuted in 1950) was full-color painted art.

 

Two panels from a 1958 strip:

 

[ashrael]

It really depends on the piece whether the B&W or color is better. There were two splash pages on eBay in the last year (I was outbid on both) that looked much better B&W than their colored, printed version. One was a Namor fight scene that look good in color, but great in B&W. The other was a Adam Warlock vs. Magus splash that looked really crappy printed, but was terrific in B&W.

 

In general I think panel art looks better with color because you can distinguish objects more easily, but again there are many monotone pages that I would love to have OA for.

[Bronty]

Yeah I don't mean comparing B&W art to the printed panel. I see your point on that as the coloring is sometimes bad, and sometimes the monotone looks better, I agree 100%.

 

What I am talking about though is comparing b&w mediums to color mediums. The b&w medium has its own appeal but you can do so much more with color. Very few movies or paintings are just in black & white you know? Color is an important attribute of a work of art. It may or may not be an important attribute of a printed panel that was done in b&w and then (sometimes) sloppily colored in photoshop. There's more than a bit of "artistry" lost there and you can't compare a panel printed in color to an original work created in color.

 

So, you bring up a good point. I guess if the yardstick we are comparing b&w art to is printed panel, I see the OP's point and would sometimes agree. On the other hand if we are comparing b&w art to color art... well... that's a different discussion and in that context the lack of color isn't a fatal flaw but its not a selling point either IMO

[VintageComics]

Bill Everett's art looked spectacular in B + W, especially the pages from the Sub-Mariner origin story, before they coloured it for Marvel Comics #1.

 

Wrightson is another artist who's work seems to often look better in B + W, and the cover to HOM #195 seems to come to mind as a premiere example of that.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Wrightson's 'Apparaitions' portfolio (late 1970s, I think?) featured the artist's color work, which was stunning.

 

 

[Bronty]

I just googled that, wow, some beautiful images there. Thanks.

 

That hulk vs thing graphic novel and the spiderman hooky graphic novel also come to mind.

 

Point being, his color work is at least as good. So long as he's the one in control. When the color is being slapped on by an inferior talent well of course its going to look better in B&W. His B&W art is great.

 

Anyways, this is totally off the rails - my point was never about whether color or b&w work is *better* as both can be good. But to look past the lack of color to the point where one starts to view it as a positive? That's too much IMO

[VintageComics]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Wrightson doesn't look good in colour but like Bronty said, that is going to come down to who did the colouring.

 

There are just some artists that I enjoy as much in B + W as I do in colour, and that is a relatively small list compared to all the artists out there.

 

Guys like Frazetta (and / or Williamson), Raboy, Wrightson, Miller, Eisner, Ward and Everett seem to knock it out of the park on a regular basis even with just simple black and white lines. Tough to do.

 

 

[Bronty]

agreed

[Terry Doyle]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Wrightson doesn't look good in colour but like Bronty said, that is going to come down to who did the colouring.

 

 

I was thinking specifically of Wrightson coloring Wrightson (hence my 'Apparitions' point of reference).

 

The four-color printing, for a lot of the vintage comic-books, was pretty primitive (more of a production process, as opposed to being aesthetically creative) - which is why most of us prefer the b&w OA.