Phantom Lady NOT by Matt Baker?

[Sarg]

I picked up the PS Art Books reprint of Phantom Lady and was jolted to read Jim Vadeboncoeur's introduction to Vol. 2, in which he puts forth his opinion that Matt Baker actually drew very little of Phantom Lady for Fox. This includes not drawing the infamous cover to #17. I'm well outside of current fandom, but everything I've read from time immemorial has credited virtually all of the Fox Phantom Lady to Baker.

 

Here's Jim's opinion on the covers:

 

#13 - only PL's face drawn by Baker

#14 - "anyone who believes that Baker drew this cover has a very low opinion of Mr. Baker."

#15 - "could be Baker but looks more like Kamen"

#16 - "looks like pure Al Feldstein"

#17 - "primarily Al Feldstein ... Baker drew sexy women, but he didn't draw deformed ones."

#18 - "Primarily Feldstein."

 

To conclude, Jim says, "Baker drew and signed a splash page in the first PL comic, and he pencilled one story each in the next two issues, and her second appearance in All-Top. That's it." All the rest are deliberate imitators of Baker, mostly Kamen, Feldstein, Alex Blum, and others in the Iger shop, to fool Victor Fox into thinking he was getting Baker artwork. But Matt was instead working mostly on Fiction House titles from mid-47 onwards.

 

What I find most shocking about this is that Kamen lived until a few years ago and of course Feldstein only died a few weeks ago. Why in the world couldn't all of this have been verified by them decades ago? Feldstein liked to boast about his covers -- how could he possibly not claim one of the most infamous covers of the Golden Age (PL 17) if he in fact drew it?

 

 

[Forbush-Man]

This is just one source speaking. Where's his proof?

[Bronty]

Jarring to be sure. But I can immediately see how #17 could be at least in part feldstein

[adamstrange]

If you were to put together a list of the Top 10 best and most prolific identifiers of comic book artists Jim would be on the list. I pay close attention to his opinions.

 

I too wish we had contacted Feldstein as he has been accessible to fans and Jim has contacted many other artists over the years as part of his research.

[Doohickamabob]

Here's Jim's opinion on the covers:

#13 - only PL's face drawn by Baker

#14 - "anyone who believes that Baker drew this cover has a very low opinion of Mr. Baker."

#15 - "could be Baker but looks more like Kamen"

#16 - "looks like pure Al Feldstein"

#17 - "primarily Al Feldstein ... Baker drew sexy women, but he didn't draw deformed ones."

#18 - "Primarily Feldstein."

Hmmm... (image below thanks to Comics.org)

#13: That could be a Baker-drawn body. Looks reminiscent of some of the full-page women's bodies that cover other panels.

#14: Yeah that looks like one of the Fox "house" artists. Nothing remarkable in the style. The breasts look uninspired, like sloppily shaded lumps. I kinda like the cover anyway.

#15: There are a lot of Baker-drawn bodies that look like this (Sky Girl, etc.) Action pose.

#16: It's an awkwardly composed body where the head/neck doesn't seem to match the body. It's true that Feldstein has shown this tendency elsewhere, especially the Junior #11 cover where the gal has fallen on her rump in the snow. Her legs don't connect properly to her torso.

#17: The draping of the chest/blouse might be Feldstein-ish. But Feldstein, Kamen, and Baker all could draw hands better than that. Those aren't fingers, they're talons.

#18: Feldstein? Why does he conclude this? (I can kinda see it though... Feldstein does that pouty-lip thing and it's evident in his Modern Love and A Moon, A Girl....Romance covers too.)

#19 through #23: He has nothing to say? #21 has got to be Baker, right?

[MB1952]

#16 & #17 look Baker layouts, Matt Baker did not ink his pencils. Al Feldstein was consider one of the best inker during that era. What I notice Matt Baker drew the "M" on hands.

 

Many examples exist with this hidden message "W" or "M"? can this be his telling us drawn by Matt Baker?

[Cat-Man_America]

I picked up the PS Art Books reprint of Phantom Lady and was jolted to read Jim Vadeboncoeur's introduction to Vol. 2, in which he puts forth his opinion that Matt Baker actually drew very little of Phantom Lady for Fox. This includes not drawing the infamous cover to #17. I'm well outside of current fandom, but everything I've read from time immemorial has credited virtually all of the Fox Phantom Lady to Baker.

 

Here's Jim's opinion on the covers:

 

#13 - only PL's face drawn by Baker

#14 - "anyone who believes that Baker drew this cover has a very low opinion of Mr. Baker."

#15 - "could be Baker but looks more like Kamen"

#16 - "looks like pure Al Feldstein"

#17 - "primarily Al Feldstein ... Baker drew sexy women, but he didn't draw deformed ones."

#18 - "Primarily Feldstein."

 

To conclude, Jim says, "Baker drew and signed a splash page in the first PL comic, and he pencilled one story each in the next two issues, and her second appearance in All-Top. That's it." All the rest are deliberate imitators of Baker, mostly Kamen, Feldstein, Alex Blum, and others in the Iger shop, to fool Victor Fox into thinking he was getting Baker artwork. But Matt was instead working mostly on Fiction House titles from mid-47 onwards.

 

What I find most shocking about this is that Kamen lived until a few years ago and of course Feldstein only died a few weeks ago. Why in the world couldn't all of this have been verified by them decades ago? Feldstein liked to boast about his covers -- how could he possibly not claim one of the most infamous covers of the Golden Age (PL 17) if he in fact drew it?

 

 

There are any number of reasons why surviving artists might not want to lay claim to the late artist's most famous attributions, and I doubt that false modesty or missed opportunities to set the record straight had anything to do with it. This was probably about respecting the memory of Matt Baker and, of course, how it would look to tread upon a groundbreaking artist's legacy.

 

A good sports analogy would be trying to dispute the historical record of groundbreaking baseball players like Jackie Robinson or Satchel Paige. Regardless of any circumstantial evidence one might come up with, rewriting history is a foolhardy endeavor that only ends in controversy and butt-hurt.

[stroszek]

I

#14 - "anyone who believes that Baker drew this cover has a very low opinion of Mr. Baker."

 

 

I'm not a comic book scholar, but this seems to me the statement that is least disputable. The only way that's a Matt Baker cover is if he was drawing with his weak hand and while asleep. It's so far away from anything we know (or strongly believe) to be Baker I can't understand why it ever got credited to him.

[Sarg]

 

There are any number of reasons why surviving artists might not want to lay claim to the late artist's most famous attributions, and I doubt that false modesty or missed opportunities to set the record straight had anything to do with it. This was probably about respecting the memory of Matt Baker and, of course, how it would look to tread upon a groundbreaking artist's legacy.

 

A good sports analogy would be trying to dispute the historical record of groundbreaking players like Jackie Robinson or Satchel Paige. Regardless of any circumstantial evidence one might come up with, rewriting history is a foolhardy endeavor that only ends in controversy and butt-hurt.

 

But if Baker didn't draw the covers then it was never "history" to begin with -- it was an erroneous attribution that became seriously compounded over time.

[Rip]

Its not the first time these claims have come up, but I just don't see enough evidence supporting these claims.

[rjpb]

Far be it for me to argue with Jim Vadeboncoeur about attribution, and it's clear that all the covers commonly attributed to Baker don't look like work by the same artist ( #14 especially), at least exclusively.

 

That said, it does seem that Vadeboncoeur may be going too far in the other direction. Given the nature of comic art there is a good chance of collaborative efforts among the covers, beyond one artist inking another, but I just don't see how #15 looks more like Kamen than Baker.

[Sqeggs]

I would guess that the way this art was executed may make it impossible to disentangle who did what without those involved providing the details, which it appears that none of them did.

 

I've always been in the minority who thought that PL 17 is not a well-executed drawing. If it wasn't for its notoriety as the SOTI headlights cover and the Baker attribution, I don't think it would be attracting much attention.

 

The other point is that Baker's pre-St John work and even some of his early St John work is markedly inferior to his 1950-1954 work. So much so that without the prime St John work, I doubt any of us would care much about him today.

 

To follow up on the earlier Jackie Robinson reference, Baker not only resembled Robinson in pioneering in what had been an almost exclusively white industry, he also was like Jackie in having a career that was brilliant, but short.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

Far be it for me to argue with Jim Vadeboncoeur about attribution, and it's clear that all the covers commonly attributed to Baker don't look like work by the same artist ( #14 especially), at least exclusively.

 

That said, it does seem that Vadeboncoeur may be going too far in the other direction. Given the nature of comic art there is a good chance of collaborative efforts among the covers, beyond one artist inking another, but I just don't see how #15 looks more like Kamen than Baker.

 

Agreed. My earlier point wasn't that the covers are credited correctly, because it's obvious from even a cursory examination of the eleven issue run that other artists had a hand in several (#14 in particular stands out). The risk is that questioning attributions is a slippery slope and without solid evidence to the contrary only serves to weaken Baker's legacy through idle speculation about each unsigned cover.

 

It's doubtful that Baker's fans will respect his signed work any less, but because of the notoriety of his Phantom Lady work and the reverence held for this series in the fan community, disputing which covers are his might fuel a reevaluation of the importance of his work in toto. That would be a tragically unjust mistake, IMO.

[adamstrange]

 

I don't believe we have any records so the only evidence anyone has as to the original artists are our eyes.

 

I've never thought the entire PL run was of the same quality of artistry and that, as was often the case in the 40s, images that look like Baker's work are often a team effort. That team, importantly, may not always include any participation by Baker.

[Cat-Man_America]

 

There are any number of reasons why surviving artists might not want to lay claim to the late artist's most famous attributions, and I doubt that false modesty or missed opportunities to set the record straight had anything to do with it. This was probably about respecting the memory of Matt Baker and, of course, how it would look to tread upon a groundbreaking artist's legacy.

 

A good sports analogy would be trying to dispute the historical record of groundbreaking baseball players like Jackie Robinson or Satchel Paige. Regardless of any circumstantial evidence one might come up with, rewriting history is a foolhardy endeavor that only ends in controversy and butt-hurt.

 

But if Baker didn't draw the covers then it was never "history" to begin with -- it was an erroneous attribution that became seriously compounded over time.

 

True, but history and legacy are often in conflict and rarely reconciled to everyone's satisfaction. Trying to revise the former without solid evidence invalidating the latter usually ends up in endless controversy.

[comicnoir]

One way to ferret out art attribution is to find another example that resembles the piece in question, but was done by someone else. No other Fox or FH covers look like the PL's. 15 definitely is Baker. Even with other hands, he was present. His pre St. John's work shows great layout skills and sexy action poses. His Tiger Girl and Sky girl work were incredible. His camera angles were unparalleled. There was nothing else like it. And it was recognizable. When he went to St. John's his angles became more neutral and the drawing more naturalistic, because it suited the subject matter. I think Ginger in Sky Girl is one of the great achievements in comic art. Baker was the true master and even his lesser work surpassed everyone else.

[Doohickamabob]

. I think Ginger in Sky Girl is one of the great achievements in comic art. Baker was the true master and even his lesser work surpassed everyone else.

+1

 

[Sarg]

Jack Kamen was interviewed in 1982 (printed in Squa Tront #12, 2007). He just briefly talks about his Iger years. But someone apparently did send him seventeen of the Iger shop's 1947-49 covers to identify (Jo-Jo, Zoot, Rulah, Brenda Starr, Bruce Gentry, Blue Beetle). He said he pencilled and inked five, two were pencilled by JK and inked by David Heames, two were pencilled by JK and inked by Feldstein, and others were pencilled by JK and inked by "diverse hands." He thought only two were partially pencilled/inked by Baker, with Heames and Feldstein inking or drawing the rest of the cover.

 

So a lot of the Iger stuff seems highly collaborative. The identification becomes even more difficult when you have lesser known artists like Robert Webb and David Heames working on the stuff.

[Sarg]

One way to ferret out art attribution is to find another example that resembles the piece in question, but was done by someone else. No other Fox or FH covers look like the PL's.

 

But if you look at the way Kamen drew Rulah on the covers of Zoot and Rulah, she looks a lot like Phantom Lady in a bikini.

 

It sure seems like Kamen was Fox's #1 cover guy in the late 47 through early 49 period. So it would be pretty odd if he didn't do some PL.

 

Is it possible that fans didn't ask Kamen about PL because they "knew" that those covers were by Baker?

 

Plus, Kamen does not appear to have been very accessible. He speaks disparagingly of his comics work in the 1982 interview.

[comicnoir]

One way to ferret out art attribution is to find another example that resembles the piece in question, but was done by someone else. No other Fox or FH covers look like the PL's.

 

But if you look at the way Kamen drew Rulah on the covers of Zoot and Rulah, she looks a lot like Phantom Lady in a bikini.

 

It sure seems like Kamen was Fox's #1 cover guy in the late 47 through early 49 period. So it would be pretty odd if he didn't do some PL.

 

Is it possible that fans didn't ask Kamen about PL because they "knew" that those covers were by Baker?

 

Plus, Kamen does not appear to have been very accessible. He speaks disparagingly of his comics work in the 1982 interview.

 

I disagree with the similarity between Rulah and PL. Rulah's jawline is different and PL has a softer look. They were both in the Iger Shop but I would never mistake Brenda Starr 14 as Baker or PL 21 as Kamen. 14 doesn't look like either, more like the janitor tried his hand.