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

[phoenix215]

LB Cole for me

[Theagenes]

If we are including comic strip artists as well as comic book artists, then Foster, Raymond and Caniff have to be at the top of the list.

 

 

 

[tth2]

A few years ago, I probably would have said Lou Fine. But my exposure to GA artists through these boards and sites such as Heritage has ended up pushing old Lou down. I can't say what order they would take, but I know that I would now rate Creig Flessel, Leo O'Mealia and Mac Raboy over Fine.

[tth2]

If we are including comic strip artists as well as comic book artists, then Foster, Raymond and Caniff have to be at the top of the list.

Absolutely love Foster and Raymond. I have huge respect for Caniff and appreciate his massive influence on comic strips, but his art always left me cold.

[143ksk]

For me, the premiere artist of the GA is Carl Barks. Walt Kelly is second for non-superhero work.

 

In terms of superheroes, Bob Fujitani (only mentioned once so far--thanks Vince ) and Mac Raboy would be the best.

 

When talking about greatness though, I start to think about influence and ground breaking work, so people like Eisner, Foster and Raymond also have to be on the list.

[jimm]

LB Coles covers are amazing, Graham Ingles art oozes horror, Wolverton's one of a kind style is fantastic, ditto for Ditko, Flessels dc stuff is stellar. Thats about as far as I can narrow it down. Force me to pick and I go with Frazetta. Those Buck Rogers covers are UNBELIEVABLE

[buttock]

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.

[The Black Hand ®]

For me, the premiere artist of the GA is Carl Barks. Walt Kelly is second for non-superhero work.

 

In terms of superheroes, Bob Fujitani (only mentioned once so far--thanks Vince ) and Mac Raboy would be the best.

 

When talking about greatness though, I start to think about influence and ground breaking work, so people like Eisner, Foster and Raymond also have to be on the list.

 

I was about to mention Bark's, but you beat me to it. Every panel a complete work of art.

[seank]

Barks should be on the list. Will Eisner is a serious contender for greatest.

[Forbush-Man]

Anyone mention Burne Hogarth yet???

 

I remember being floored by the one page spread reprinted in "Steranko's History of the Comics", volume 1.

 

Here's an example of his Tarzan work

 

[selegue]

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

[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.

 

Excellent points buttock! Those early Supermans (Actions) epitomize the golden age. They are the beginning of the era and the craft. The same argument applies for me with Kane and Everett.

[*paull*]

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

 

Splash

 

interior

 

another interior

[RareHighGrade]

1930's: Flessel and O'Melia.

1940's: Fine (I haven't seen enough of Rayboy's word to evaluate it).

1950's: Frazetta and Williamson.

 

I don't know where to put Foster and Raymond, but they were simply awesome.

[adamstrange]

If we are including comic strip artists as well as comic book artists, then Foster, Raymond and Caniff have to be at the top of the list.

 

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. It's like listening to a trully great singer and then listening to the rest -- you realize they're off-key or lack control of the tone/timbre across their vocal range and, and as result, they seem shallow by comparison.

 

If you look at the Ray page below (which I've seen in person), it is much more stunning than it would appear based on the scan. Lou Fine had incredible control of the Japanese brush that he and Eisner loved to use. But I'm not that enamored of the way he chose to draw the Ray in panel 6 -- it's not wrong, just not interesting to me. And I don't believe in the horse in panel 3 anymore than I believe the bear on Hit 13. It stops my eye every time I look at the page.

 

 

One of the comments in the Canamaker biography of McKay was that he had incredible eyesight and was able to watch an object in motion and still be able to "freeze the frame" so that he couold draw an accurate image as of a point in time. It was this ability that also enabled him to be such an important pioneer in early animation.

 

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.

 

Here's a couple examples -- not the best due to problems in the reproductions in the book. There's a big book of Little Nemo put out by Fantagraphics that gives you 5 years of the strip (printed large) for one reasonable price.

 

 

[Forbush-Man]

Excellent!

[*paull*]

Winsor McCay was simply amazing. The thing that I love about his artwork, aside from the obvious mastery of composition and his fine inking, is his ability to capture simple expressions and gestures, the details that most artists don't notice or utilize.

 

As for Lou Fine, the page that is posted above is an excellent example of why I don't consider Fine to be a top artist of the GA. I don't understand his choices for framing of the hero character... What's going on in panel 4? Look at the plane wing in the last panel. The perspective is completely wrong. Unlike many people here on the Boards, I don't share their view that Lou Fine's grasp of anatomy, proportion and composition is top notch.

[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.

[adamstrange]

Winsor McCay was simply amazing. The thing that I love about his artwork, aside from the obvious mastery of composition and his fine inking, is his ability to capture simple expressions and gestures, the details that most artists don't notice or utilize.

 

As for Lou Fine, the page that is posted above is an excellent example of why I don't consider Fine to be a top artist of the GA. I don't understand his choices for framing of the hero character... What's going on in panel 4? Look at the plane wing in the last panel. The perspective is completely wrong. Unlike many people here on the Boards, I don't share their view that Lou Fine's grasp of anatomy, proportion and composition is top notch.

 

I was noticing the careful capturing of expression as I was leafing through my book on the 1905-1906 years of the strip. McKay was the complete package -- he was at the pinnacle of all three fields he worked in: comic strips, editorial cartoons (these include some incredible illustrations), and animation.

[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.