Heritage May 2014

[Bronty]

Of course. There's wonderful artwork in the GA, and terrible... same as every other age really although there is more of a "spread" perhaps between good and bad in GA as it was a younger medium then.

 

I think writing off all of the GA as being bad art is totally wrong , its just less polished, but that can have its own appeal.

 

To me though this is one of those covers where it goes past a little "crude" to "naive" - almost like bad folk art.

[alxjhnsn]

+1

 

Can't believe my list wasn't longer. I'm going to blame it on getting up at 2am to catch a plane.

 

Thanks for filling in a few. I'd like to add Sprang and Jerry Robinson as well.

[drdroom]

I agree there's a lot of horrible stuff in the GA but a lot of amazing stuff too.

 

Lou Fine

Schomburg

That Frazetta guy

Charles Biro

Matt Baker

Mac Raboy

Eisner

Basil Wolverton

Bill Everett

Wally Wood

Lou E. O'Melia

Gus Ricca

LB Cole

Toth

etc

 

 

Then there's the so awkward its amazing stuff. I'd kill for a Fletcher Hanks original.

[drdroom]

Plus, Jack Cole, fools.

[kbmcvay]

Don't leave out the rest of the EC boys (Wally Wood was already mentioned)...Crandall, Ingles, Kamen, Davis, Craig, etc.

[stinkininkin]

Oh sure, I too could make a list of guys that are not part of the 99% (a number I just pulled out of my A$$). Was actually talking to my buddy Scott Dunbier just the other day about this exact subject and we both agreed that Frazetta and Eisner and the EC guys are HUGELY desirable (at least by us). There are some other names too, but my only point was that for me personally, aesthetics at the end of the day trumps history. This was my point in the Hulk 180 page discussion, and it is with an understanding that I am in the minority on this position. As has been said many times, the heart wants what the heart wants.

 

Scott

[adamstrange]

 

I can't say that Id be excited about either one as a great piece of art. The WW figure is almost childishly drawn, esp with the bullets richocheting in curved lines off the bracelets (and multiple shots in close proximity from the machine gun is one thing, but from a revolver)?

 

They say a lot of GA artists were basically kids at the time and IMO on this one it really shows.

 

I'd say that it's only the current/former comic collector background in us that would desire this piece in the slightest. Aesthetically it's a bit of a train wreck

 

I know that a lot of pieces we desire are only worth anything because of where / when / how they were published, and usually we don't give it a second thought, but I find the poor aesthetics jarring on this one. I can't look a the bullets bouncing off the bracelets without wincing

The cover is designed to sell the comic. It could be more realistic but would probably then be much less suited to its purpose.

 

Just like Hollywood films routinely defy the laws of physics (car explosions that involve fireworks, guns that never need to be re-loaded, scenes that commonly take place within the first or last hour of daylight) and create a hpyer-reality (e.g. sword fights choreographed like a dance, etc.), comic book artist didn't and don't feel terribly constrained by what's realistic.

 

Harry George Peter (March 8, 1880 – 1958) was almost 60 years old when drew the Sensation cover.

[drdroom]

Don't leave out the rest of the EC boys (Wally Wood was already mentioned)...Crandall, Ingles, Kamen, Davis, Craig, etc.

 

My feeling is its more useful to regard the fifties as a different age. So much changed, in both content and sophistication.

[Bronty]

 

Harry George Peter (March 8, 1880 – 1958) was almost 60 years old when drew the Sensation cover.

 

Touche!

 

(and I'd guess he was 59 when he first picked up a pencil )

[Bronty]

Don't leave out the rest of the EC boys (Wally Wood was already mentioned)...Crandall, Ingles, Kamen, Davis, Craig, etc.

 

My feeling is its more useful to regard the fifties as a different age. So much changed, in both content and sophistication.

 

totally agree

[tth2]

Harry George Peter (March 8, 1880 – 1958) was almost 60 years old when drew the Sensation cover.

That may be one of the saddest facts I've ever heard.

[Unca Ben]

I know that a lot of pieces we desire are only worth anything because of where / when / how they were published, and usually we don't give it a second thought, but I find the poor aesthetics jarring on this one. I can't look a the bullets bouncing off the bracelets without wincing

 

Eh, I think we have to be forgiving of the times, circumstances and the audience for whom these images were drawn. At this point, it's really all about their historical/cultural value and importance...any artistic merit for GA art is merely a bonus.

 

Which is why I would never be a buyer for 99% of GA art. But that's just me.

 

Scott

 

I would take a Lou Fine or a Mac Raboy cover over 99% of the cover art produced today.

[stinkininkin]

I know that a lot of pieces we desire are only worth anything because of where / when / how they were published, and usually we don't give it a second thought, but I find the poor aesthetics jarring on this one. I can't look a the bullets bouncing off the bracelets without wincing

 

Eh, I think we have to be forgiving of the times, circumstances and the audience for whom these images were drawn. At this point, it's really all about their historical/cultural value and importance...any artistic merit for GA art is merely a bonus.

 

Which is why I would never be a buyer for 99% of GA art. But that's just me.

 

Scott

 

I would take a Lou Fine or a Mac Raboy cover over 99% of the cover art produced today.

 

Which is fine. I don't collect modern OA either, although there is some that I like very much. And I like Fine and Raboy too. But that still leaves about 99% of the rest I wouldn't touch.

 

Scott

 

 

[alxjhnsn]

Plus, Jack Cole, fools.

Amen!

[sfcityduck]

 

I think writing off all of the GA as being bad art is totally wrong , its just less polished, but that can have its own appeal.

 

 

I disagree. Many GA artists put out as polished, if not a more polished, product than anything seen since. Baker, Williamson, Kelly, O'Melia, Frazetta, Thompson, are unmatched by just about anyone in the modern era when it comes to "polished" (Dave Stevens is certainly in the tradition of some of the above).

 

At the risk of my own generalization, frankly, I've always thought of 1960s art as less polished than GA art, especially the Marvel stuff done in the 60s Kirby house style. I'd much rather have Wood EC art than Wood Marvel or THUNDER Agents art. I'd much rather have Everett GA art (especially Atlas horror) to Everett Marvel art.

 

But, "polished" is not the end all be all. Miller at his best wasn't polished. His style was loose. At his best on DD, he was about as "polished" as Krigstein, who he clearly imitated (and improved upon). The GA is full of fantastic artists who, if they were drawing today, would be fan favorites and not at all out of place.

 

[jbud73]

Oh sure, I too could make a list of guys that are not part of the 99% (a number I just pulled out of my A$$). Was actually talking to my buddy Scott Dunbier just the other day about this exact subject and we both agreed that Frazetta and Eisner and the EC guys are HUGELY desirable (at least by us). There are some other names too, but my only point was that for me personally, aesthetics at the end of the day trumps history. This was my point in the Hulk 180 page discussion, and it is with an understanding that I am in the minority on this position. As has been said many times, the heart wants what the heart wants.

 

Scott

 

Add Schomburg and that's a +1

 

I consider the Golden Age to Start with EC, that's when the stories and art achieved maturation into what sequential comic art would become. Prior to that the story and art had more in common with strip art than what we would come to call comic book art.

 

Just my

 

I've been looking for one piece of EC art that captures all that for me (and that I can afford in the 7-10K range) for some time now. Its all so pretty and so expensive.

[sfcityduck]

 

I consider the Golden Age to Start with EC, that's when the stories and art achieved maturation into what sequential comic art would become. Prior to that the story and art had more in common with strip art than what we would come to call comic book art.

 

 

I'm a little aghast at this statement. I'd say that Eisner and Kirby had already provided the blueprint for most of the innovations in storytelling that underlie comic storytelling from the SA forward before EC put out a comic. Toth was adding his own brushstrokes just before and as EC came out. I think Kurtzman and Krigstein broke some new ground at EC with their panel layouts and time breakdowns, but not very many modern comic artists followed their lead (Steranko and Miller being the best examples). EC stories by the other artists tend not be innovative in their storytelling because they followed pretty conventional panel constructions, had way too much text, and the editors di a lot of the layout. What makes EC special is the subject matter of the stories and the quality of the artistry. I don't think they are a manual on how to draw comics the way Eisner's Spirit is.

[sfcityduck]

Prior to that the story and art had more in common with strip art than what we would come to call comic book art.

 

I'm not sure what to make of this. Most folks would argue that strip art was generally more advanced than comic art. Few artists could match Foster (Frazetta, Wood, Stevens, Williamson all have tried and at times come very close), few artist had the cinematic vision of Sickles (Toth learned his lessons well and popularized them in comics), and while Raymond was widely imitated by most of the best comic book artists (Adams is a great example), few achieved his consistent quality.

[MrBedrock]

I've been admiring Fred Guardineer's art recently.

[sfcityduck]

I've been admiring Fred Guardineer's art recently.

 

ROFLMAO!