Laziness, Re-cycling and swiping in the GA. 9 9

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

[gadzukes]

On 2/4/2022 at 1:34 PM, gadzukes said:

Here's an Alex Raymond swipe from himself.  Or maybe this is the first one... it's from 8/12 1934

 

[october]

[path4play]

I ran across this theme on a cover of Joker Digest (Adult Humor) - I think it was, browsing the feeBay the other day.  Now I can't find it again to show the swipe... I've spent 1 hour searching, if anyone knows what it is please let me know.  Stupid feeBay seems to have changed the search functions on us...again.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by path4play

[gadzukes]

On 5/10/2022 at 6:08 PM, path4play said:

I ran across this theme on a cover of Joker Digest (Adult Humor) - I think it was, browsing the feeBay the other day.  Now I can't find it again to show the swipe... I've spent 1 hour searching, if anyone knows what it is please let me know.  Stupid feeBay seems to have changed the search functions on us...again.

 

Do you mean this one?  I guess the "idea" is similar.

Edited May 10, 2022 by gadzukes

[PeterPark]

On 5/10/2022 at 7:30 PM, gadzukes said:

Do you mean this one?  I guess the "idea" is similar.

Many of the posted examples are not swipes but more "theme"-oriented. They're outside the scope of this thread as I understood it 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 5/11/2022 at 1:29 AM, PeterPark said:

Many of the posted examples are not swipes but more "theme"-oriented. They're outside the scope of this thread as I understood it 

No, it's not necessarily just about swiping, but about re-cycling of ideas and I guess laziness in adapting other work, hence the thread title.

Edited May 11, 2022 by (G-G © ® ™) Paul

[gadzukes]

On 5/10/2022 at 8:32 PM, (G-G © ® ™) Paul said:

No, it's not necessarily just about swiping, but about re-cycling of ideas and I guess laziness in adapting other work, hence the thread title.

I do find the literal "drawing swipes" to be the most fascinating myself, especially when they're barely changed at all.

[PeterPark]

On 5/10/2022 at 8:32 PM, (G-G © ® ™) Paul said:

No, it's not necessarily just about swiping, but about re-cycling of ideas and I guess laziness in adapting other work, hence the thread title.

I see a lot that just appear to be coincidental. 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 5/11/2022 at 1:49 AM, PeterPark said:

I see a lot that just appear to be coincidental. 

How can you possibly know they are coincidental? That is pure speculation. One can only judge on the evidence of the eyes, surely?

If copying  for example was always deemed as pure coincidence, there would be no such word in the dictionary as plagiarism. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by (G-G © ® ™) Paul

[PeterPark]

On 1/15/2022 at 3:52 PM, tabcom said:

case in point.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 5/11/2022 at 2:33 AM, PeterPark said:

case in point.

 

On 5/11/2022 at 2:33 AM, PeterPark said:

On 1/15/2022 at 8:52 PM, tabcom said:

case in point.

What case? What point?

You've just debunked your own argument. 

The artist of both these books is Bernard Baily, ergo that is a prime example of re-cycling. 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

If you are confused by that as evidenced by your reaction, then it's pointless to try and make you understand what is obvious. 

[PeterPark]

On 5/10/2022 at 9:37 PM, (G-G © ® ™) Paul said:

 

What case? What point?

You've just debunked your own argument. 

The artist of both these books is Bernard Baily, ergo that is a prime example of re-cycling. 

Care not to confound style for recycling. The fact that it is the same artist means there are similarities that will exist no matter what. What is the same here? The zoom? A man and a woman? This is a poor example of swiping, laziness, or recycling.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 5/11/2022 at 2:43 AM, PeterPark said:

Care not to confound style for recycling. The fact that it is the same artist means there are similarities that will exist no matter what. What is the same here? The zoom? A man and a woman? This is a poor example of swiping, laziness, or recycling.

Kay... 

[PeterPark]

On 5/10/2022 at 9:44 PM, (G-G © ® ™) Paul said:

Kay... 

The legitimate examples are great, and make this thread a very worthy read. That example is a reach, at best. 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 5/11/2022 at 2:46 AM, PeterPark said:

The legitimate examples are great, and make this thread a very worthy read. That example is a reach, at best. 

Let's just agree to disagree.

[comicnoir]

On 5/10/2022 at 9:43 PM, PeterPark said:

Care not to confound style for recycling. The fact that it is the same artist means there are similarities that will exist no matter what. What is the same here? The zoom? A man and a woman? This is a poor example of swiping, laziness, or recycling.

Hitchcock said when you steal from yourself, it's style. And the man should know.

[goldust40]

I don’t see those two Baily covers as evidence of a swipe or recycling - the Weird Mysteries is an ironic take on the wholesome Radiant Love. Looks like Baily, who must’ve had a dark sense of humour, was having some fun there.

[bronze johnny]

On 1/16/2022 at 10:14 AM, Jayman said:

I agree that it is striking, but I put it in the same category as Mister Mystery 12. Visually striking but not artistically pleasing (to me). This is still my favorite big head Heck cover.

Jay, your not liking Horrific 3 is fair since it doesn’t fit your taste. I never liked the cover to Horrific 8 but that’s my own taste. That said, it’s the concept for simplicity that makes Horrific 3 such a classic and a cover that stands out in any group shot. There’s also a consensus of collectors who identify Horrific 3 as a true classic cover (I’m one of those collectors). The fact that the head was seen in War Fury 1 with different eyes (bloodshot in Horrific 3) doesn’t in any way change the fact that Heck achieved his greatest level of artistic excellence with Horrific 3. Artists have free reign to do with they want with art. That’s one of the beauties of art in and of itself. An artist can take art they have done before or from another artist and do what they want with it. Many Hip hop musicians (which I’m no fan of) took previously recorded music and added it to their own songs. Check out what one hip hop artist did with the Police’s “Every Breath You Take” song. I personally dislike the song and in one sense could say it’s recycled music. But it isn’t. There are classic covers that I don’t care for but that doesn’t make exclude them from being classic when the consensus is that they are. There are universal truths and the same holds for truth in art. An artist’s path to a true work of art can be to take what they’ve done before and do it even better. That’s what Heck did with Horrific 3. The simple concepts that Horrific 3 and what Baily did for Mister Mystery are classic. Warhol’s painting Campbell Soup cans are ingenious in their simplicity and there’s nothing complex about his painting them. Do you think Warhol’s Campbell Soup cans are something no one had seen before he painted them? This whole idea that an artist can’t take from their own prior work and use it for something else rejects an avenue an artist can take to create beautiful art.