Who was "The Greatest Golden Age Artist" in comics?

[Forbush-Man]

I guess this question needs a bit more definition.

 

1) we need to set a date range - Frazetta, and even LB Cole fall a bit more into the post GA range (although Cole had his fair share in the WWII era).

 

2) Are we asking who's the best artist, or who's the most representative of the GA feel, irrespective of true "artistic" skill/talent.

 

When I open up a WWII era book and flip through it, there are certain artists/stories that just scream "GOLDEN AGE" to me, and they're certainly not always the guys that we like for their cover art. A couple of names that haven't been thrown out there would be Joe Simon and Joe Shuster. When I see the early Simon covers on Fox and Harvey stuff, I see the epitome of GA. And when I read an early Superman that's stuffed full of Shuster art, I see the quintessential artist of the GA. I mean he defined the superhero as a character, and he did it as well as anyone else. The art in Superman 14 is just unbelievable.

 

That's not to discredit Fine, Cole (Jack and LB), Raboy (who's work reminds me more of 1930s rather than 40s), Gustavson, Schomburg, etc., as they're all great in their own right. And they may actually be better technical artists. And for all the huff-n-puff about Fine's attention to detail with anatomy, his perspective and ability to put it all together wasn't always there like Raboy.

 

I can't go with Shuster or Kane as great artists. Shuster stole Roy Crane's style and way too many of images. The art you like in Superman 14 is very likely by or with assistance of one of the Shuster studio artists -- he wasn't that good nor that fast and was very quickly hiring others like Boring, Ray, and Burnley to help out.

 

Kane stole from everyone -- yes, the result was very effective but it's enough for me to disqualify both him and Shuster from consderation.

 

Disqualify this Adam..

 

 

 

Didn't he swipe that from Adams?..............

 

 

I kid, I kid.

[adamstrange]

I guess this question needs a bit more definition.

 

1) we need to set a date range - Frazetta, and even LB Cole fall a bit more into the post GA range (although Cole had his fair share in the WWII era).

 

2) Are we asking who's the best artist, or who's the most representative of the GA feel, irrespective of true "artistic" skill/talent.

 

When I open up a WWII era book and flip through it, there are certain artists/stories that just scream "GOLDEN AGE" to me, and they're certainly not always the guys that we like for their cover art. A couple of names that haven't been thrown out there would be Joe Simon and Joe Shuster. When I see the early Simon covers on Fox and Harvey stuff, I see the epitome of GA. And when I read an early Superman that's stuffed full of Shuster art, I see the quintessential artist of the GA. I mean he defined the superhero as a character, and he did it as well as anyone else. The art in Superman 14 is just unbelievable.

 

That's not to discredit Fine, Cole (Jack and LB), Raboy (who's work reminds me more of 1930s rather than 40s), Gustavson, Schomburg, etc., as they're all great in their own right. And they may actually be better technical artists. And for all the huff-n-puff about Fine's attention to detail with anatomy, his perspective and ability to put it all together wasn't always there like Raboy.

 

I can't go with Shuster or Kane as great artists. Shuster stole Roy Crane's style and way too many of images. The art you like in Superman 14 is very likely by or with assistance of one of the Shuster studio artists -- he wasn't that good nor that fast and was very quickly hiring others like Boring, Ray, and Burnley to help out.

 

Kane stole from everyone -- yes, the result was very effective but it's enough for me to disqualify both him and Shuster from consderation.

 

Disqualify this Adam..

 

 

If that doesn't capture the essence of the golden age, I don't know what does. None of that sketchy, overly inked, Lou Fine material even comes close. I don't want to hear the Jerry Robinson drivel either. If anyone bothered to look at Robinson's artwork carefully they would see when he started to take over for Kane. This is not Robinson in any way, shape, or form.

 

I love that cover (it was my top 3 of GA covers IIRC) and let's assume that it and a few others are actually all Kane. There are many covers I love just as much and more than Kane's. I won't put someone as the TOP artist of the GA based on that small output, especially as much of his overall reputation is based on so much swipage. I love all sorts of artists for different reasons so choosing one comic book artist is not easy at all. One way of getting to my favorites is choosing criteria to narrow the field. That's me, your mileage may vary.

[rjpb]

One of the things I love about the Golden Age is the variety of artistic styles. With a little searching - that variety can be found today, but outside of undergounds the silver and bronze ages seem a little more uniform (not that there isn't some phenomenal art from those eras)

 

Due to the nature of the medium I find art that conveys dynamic flow trumps refinement. This is why Simon & Kirby were superstars in their own time - much of their work looks rushed and sloppy and there is little regard for correct anatomy, but the art has such fluid energy that the minds eye fills in the motion between panels.

 

Schomburg's covers succeed for similar reasons - he also walked the line between cartoony and serious beautifully - something I also love about Will Eisner, Jack Cole and Sprang.

 

 

As much as I love the pulp-feel of his covers - I find Fine to be a bit overrated - but tops when it comes to drawing skulls.

 

As much as I get irritated by Frazetta-philes attempting to elevate their man above all others - his talent cannot be ignored. While he owes a lot to Hal Foster, I find him less stiff.

 

L.B. Cole understood what makes a great cover - especially in the 1940s.

 

 

Other favorites of mine from the era - in no particular order:

 

Wally Wood

Alex Toth

Harvey Kurtzman

Johnny Craig

Basil Wolverton

Matt Baker

Leo O'Mealia

Milton Caniff

Chester Gould

Joe Kubert

Bill Everett

Jack Davis

Russ Heath

[adamstrange]

Here are some pics from Master Comics 27, part of the battle between Captain Marvel Jr. and Captain Nazi.

 

Splash

 

interior

 

another interior

 

Thanks for the links. I love Raboy's comic book much more than I love his work on Flash Gordon, though his earliest work is generally better as wasn't swiping so much from himself. One exceptional story from the mid-40s by him is in Green Lama 7.

[TheEyeSees]

I could get on board with pretty much all of the incredible artists listed above... for me, its very period specific for each artist. But since my focus is during the 1939 to 1940 period, that's what I look at when choosing Wolverton (Spacehawk/Space Patrol/Meteor Martin, etc.) as my fav artist. I think he was totally original, and his work still holds up today. Plus I always choose the underdog and the obscure... (what about that MAD #11 cover??? So awesome)

 

A close second is Everett from his AMAZING MAN period, and early Submariner strips... just incredible, Golden Age-y , exciting work. He could draw water like a hot darn!!! Good looking women too!! maybe i'll have to rethink this...

 

I know I just posted this in the Centaur thread, but its too beautiful not to post here:

 

[adamstrange]

While he owes a lot to Hal Foster, I find him less stiff.

 

I think this is a fair overall assessment of his Prince Valiant work (there are some outstanding exceptions), but I wouldn't apply it to his Tarzan art which is much more loose and oriented to story telling through sequential art.

[ciorac]

I guess this question needs a bit more definition.

 

1) we need to set a date range - Frazetta, and even LB Cole fall a bit more into the post GA range (although Cole had his fair share in the WWII era).

 

2) Are we asking who's the best artist, or who's the most representative of the GA feel, irrespective of true "artistic" skill/talent.

 

When I open up a WWII era book and flip through it, there are certain artists/stories that just scream "GOLDEN AGE" to me, and they're certainly not always the guys that we like for their cover art. A couple of names that haven't been thrown out there would be Joe Simon and Joe Shuster. When I see the early Simon covers on Fox and Harvey stuff, I see the epitome of GA. And when I read an early Superman that's stuffed full of Shuster art, I see the quintessential artist of the GA. I mean he defined the superhero as a character, and he did it as well as anyone else. The art in Superman 14 is just unbelievable.

 

That's not to discredit Fine, Cole (Jack and LB), Raboy (who's work reminds me more of 1930s rather than 40s), Gustavson, Schomburg, etc., as they're all great in their own right. And they may actually be better technical artists. And for all the huff-n-puff about Fine's attention to detail with anatomy, his perspective and ability to put it all together wasn't always there like Raboy.

 

I can't go with Shuster or Kane as great artists. Shuster stole Roy Crane's style and way too many of images. The art you like in Superman 14 is very likely by or with assistance of one of the Shuster studio artists -- he wasn't that good nor that fast and was very quickly hiring others like Boring, Ray, and Burnley to help out.

 

Kane stole from everyone -- yes, the result was very effective but it's enough for me to disqualify both him and Shuster from consderation.

 

Disqualify this Adam..

 

 

If that doesn't capture the essence of the golden age, I don't know what does. None of that sketchy, overly inked, Lou Fine material even comes close. I don't want to hear the Jerry Robinson drivel either. If anyone bothered to look at Robinson's artwork carefully they would see when he started to take over for Kane. This is not Robinson in any way, shape, or form.

 

I love that cover (it was my top 3 of GA covers IIRC) and let's assume that it and a few others are actually all Kane. There are many covers I love just as much and more than Kane's. I won't put someone as the TOP artist of the GA based on that small output, especially as much of his overall reputation is based on so much swipage. I love all sorts of artists for different reasons so choosing one comic book artist is not easy at all. One way of getting to my favorites is choosing criteria to narrow the field. That's me, your mileage may vary.

 

Fair enough. You make a good point.

 

For some reason I am attracted to the ones that started the artform, even if their body of work is small in comparison to others.

 

Kane and Everett didn't put out all that much work, but for me it just embodies why I love golden age comics.

 

In fact, my favorite comic art of the silver age is Daredevil #1 because of Everett's artwork.

 

There were quite a few more prolific artists in the GA, but for my money I will stick with Bill and Bob.

[*paull*]

I could get on board with pretty much all of the incredible artists listed above... for me, its very period specific for each artist. But since my focus is during the 1939 to 1940 period, that's what I look at when choosing Wolverton (Spacehawk/Space Patrol/Meteor Martin, etc.) as my fav artist. I think he was totally original, and his work still holds up today. Plus I always choose the underdog and the obscure... (what about that MAD #11 cover??? So awesome)

 

I agree with you about Wolverton's originality... he was swimming upstream at the time.. no one was doing work like that, and he never bowed to what was the common way to draw. His imagination was immense... I'm fascinated by his work.

[adamstrange]

There were quite a few more prolific artists in the GA, but for my money I will stick with Bill and Bob

 

When I was picking top 10 GA covers, I focused on criteria like you mentioned and so put Tec 31 quite near the top. When picking the best artist I focus more on artistic capabilities as they apply to ALL aspects of comic book art -- so it's important for the person to handle covers, interiors, story telling, design etc.

 

Everett is, for my money, a better candidate as someone providing excellence in all of the above areas of comic art. Besides that he's just frickin' awesome!

 

My favorite "artists", btw, are Rembrandt and Monet, but there are lots and lots more I dearly love.

[Scrooge]

If we are talking newspaper strip artists I would have to go with Winsor McKay for Little Nemo. Winsor could draw anything -- humans, creatures, architecture and it's never wrong, not a line out of place, not a line missing.

 

 

If you criteria is about story telling capability then McKay, so far as I know, wrote his own stories which, while fanciful, are still quite charming with a certain amount of depth. He utilized word balloons and drew them as sequential art. He took great care with both poses and expressions as well as how the eye of the reader would move through the panels. Nor is he deficient as a designer, with both individual panels and pages filled with incredibly interesting and eye-catching compositions.

 

A similar argument has me wanting to clamor putting Jack Cole in the top 5 for his brilliant work on Plastic-Man because he was a double-threat on that strip: he both created / wrote it and drew it to "perfection" in that the expressions are spot-on generally and no-one can deny his whacked sense of design. I understand that his figures may be too cartoonish for some but I find it's harder to draw expression that feel right with a more cartoonish character than with a photo-realistic one since you have less lines to do it with hence my admiration for Kelly, Barks, Watterson, Jeff Smith, ...

[adamstrange]

That's another great example of McKay's work, with only the crocodile being unbelievable. Even that is forgiveable as he is clearly trying to anthropromorphize it a bit to make it appear less threatening.

 

As far as Jack Cole and the other artists you mention

 

One thing about Walt Kelly is that I've felt that his comic pages are rushed compared to the work on his covers and on the Pogo strip. Perhaps I haven't read the right stories.

[Scrooge]

I have to go with Raboy too, he stuns me, time and again. I don't have a single book of his, but When I See them , I go nuts. I consider Frazetta Atom age, so that makes this easier. Fine & Flessel are close, but Raboy, he has a mastery of composition, line quality & flawless execution just a notch above the rest for me.

 

Matthew, while this is all very true, I have to chime to state that Raboy can't tell a story for . His Master and CM Jr covers are gorgeous but, inside, man'o'man I don't think he stands as well as a story-teller. You call it flawless execution, I call it lifeless expression. Granted, it's beautiful to look / gawk at but it does not draw one into it though.

 

Schaffenberger agrees with you in "Hero Gets Girl" -- I wish that I had the book at hand for an exact quotation.

 

Jack

 

The exact quote on p. 22 is: "In my opinion, Beck was head and shoulders above the rest of the artists. Raboy drew exquisite, pretty but meaningless pictures."

[ciorac]

There were quite a few more prolific artists in the GA, but for my money I will stick with Bill and Bob

 

When I was picking top 10 GA covers, I focused on criteria like you mentioned and so put Tec 31 quite near the top. When picking the best artist I focus more on artistic capabilities as they apply to ALL aspects of comic book art -- so it's important for the person to handle covers, interiors, story telling, design etc.

 

Everett is, for my money, a better candidate as someone providing excellence in all of the above areas of comic art. Besides that he's just frickin' awesome!

 

My favorite "artists", btw, are Rembrandt and Monet, but there are lots and lots more I dearly love.

 

Rembrandt? Was he on Dippy Duck?

[*paull*]

The exact quote on p. 22 is: "In my opinion, Beck was head and shoulders above the rest of the artists. Raboy drew exquisite, pretty but meaningless pictures."

 

In my opinion, that's too strong a condemnation of Raboy. He may not have been the storyteller that McCay or Jack Cole were, but he had too many superior strengths to be dismissed like that. Raboy as an inker alone was practically peerless.

[*paull*]

Monet illustrated "Dicky", the guy with the decapitating whip.

[ciorac]

Monet illustrated "Dicky", the guy with the decapitating whip.

 

AH!! I thought that name sounded familiar! Thanks Paull.

[CentaurMan]

The exact quote on p. 22 is: "In my opinion, Beck was head and shoulders above the rest of the artists. Raboy drew exquisite, pretty but meaningless pictures."

 

Beck is a very underrated artist because Fawcett moved him quickly into a more cartoonish style (which was still beautifully proportioned, if lacking in detail), but his early work showed how great he could be:

 

[*paull*]

That Beck work is certainly a lot more to my liking than his cartoony work. I never liked it.

[adamstrange]

The exact quote on p. 22 is: "In my opinion, Beck was head and shoulders above the rest of the artists. Raboy drew exquisite, pretty but meaningless pictures."

 

Beck is a very underrated artist because Fawcett moved him quickly into a more cartoonish style (which was still beautifully proportioned, if lacking in detail), but his early work showed how great he could be:

 

 

Win the art on that cover is (what would the Church copy look like?). There are a few other covers by Beck around that same time of that quality. Both Cole and Beck could draw in an illustrative style (frankly, so could Barks -- look at the splash to Vacation Parade 1) -- it's part of what makes their cartoon style so impressive. Beck was forced to draw more and faster given the popularity of Capt Marvel -- but there is still cartoon work by him that is as strong as that cover. It's just different, if you know what I mean.

[rjpb]

That Beck work is certainly a lot more to my liking than his cartoony work. I never liked it.

 

 

I agree!