General Category > Comic Related Discussion
Top Five Golden Age Artists
JVJ (RIP):
You have a higher opinion of Joe Simon's contribution to the team than I do, Poztron. I believe, like Stan Lee, that Simon was an enabler. He made it possible for Kirby to shine. How much he contributed to the actual art is debatable. He spent 15 years training people to ink Jack Kirby like Joe Simon, so it's difficult to tell when it's his inks or a successful student.
Klaus Nordling was, IMHO, a consistent, thoroughly professional journeyman. He did good work, but never left me wanting more - which, I guess, is my personal criteria for a great artist. I've never bought a book because it had Joe Simon in it, nor because it had Klaus Nordling. I've bought dozens, if not hundreds, for Baker or Kirby.
Rudy Palais was originally an inker of or highly influenced by the young Reed Crandall at the Iger Shop. I've always liked his work at Ace in the mid-late '40s where he might have been inked by or influenced by Warren Kremer. By the '50s, his sweating villains had become a mockery for me. I prefer the earlier Palais.
Artists I really enjoy, but are "Great Unknowns" to the majority of comic fans are: Arthur E. Jameson, Ray Willner, Munson Paddock, Harry Anderson, the aforementioned Warren Kremer doing serious stuff, and a half-dozen more whose names I don't even know.
I like Sid Check, but he's too variable and never quite lived up to his (IMHO) potential. Gray Morrow's 1950s work is stupendous and all too often overlooked.
I've never liked to make a "favorites" list because the work of most artists varies over time, like Kremer. I prefer a certain period to others. Matt Baker in 1944 and 1959 is not so great, but Matt Baker in 1950-56 can't be beat. Some, like Al Williamson, brought a verve to anything they did, be it Toby John Wayne stores, EC sf classics, Atlas jungle girls, Charlton quick and dirty westerns or King Flash Gordons. I love it all. It's only when he adopts the John Prentice a la Alex Raymond style that he loses me. The art is great, but the life is missing. Some Maxwell Elkan strips are masterpieces, others mediocre at best. Early, pre-1946 Krigstein is crude beyond belief, but by 1948 he's a master who was never truly recognized later by Gaines and Feldstein and never understood by Kurtzman, the man with whom he SHOULD have had the most in common.
I quite literally woke up one morning circa 1974 and suddenly "GOT" Alex Toth. Up til then, I'd never understood the fuss. I guess I had to grow up. Within a year I'd acquired almost everything he'd done from 1949 to 1960. He and Williamson are passionate favorites.
The list and the rambling go on....
(|:{>
Poztron:
--- Quote from: JVJ on May 18, 2010, 05:04:44 AM ---You have a higher opinion of Joe Simon's contribution to the team than I do, Poztron. I believe, like Stan Lee, that Simon was an enabler. He made it possible for Kirby to shine. How much he contributed to the actual art is debatable. He spent 15 years training people to ink Jack Kirby like Joe Simon, so it's difficult to tell when it's his inks or a successful student.
--- End quote ---
Certainly the bulk of the S-K art credit has to go to Kirby. Simon was an OK inker (better than some Marvel later had inking Kirby, like, oh, "George Bell") but the golden age Kirby art that was my faves was usually S-K, so I think of them as a unit. Enabling Kirby to shine is worthy in its own right, though.
--- Quote ---Klaus Nordling was, IMHO, a consistent, thoroughly professional journeyman. He did good work, but never left me wanting more - which, I guess, is my personal criteria for a great artist. I've never bought a book because it had Joe Simon in it, nor because it had Klaus Nordling. I've bought dozens, if not hundreds, for Baker or Kirby.
--- End quote ---
It is funny how one person's taste can differ so much from another's. Part of what I like about Nordling's Quality stories is that, as far as I know, he was both writer and artist and there was a perfect melding of story and art. As with Cole's Plastic Man (another big fave), Nordling's Lady Luck and The Barker stories have humor threaded throughout, which I love. Back in the early 70's, when I could pick up reading copies of The Barker for a couple bucks a piece, I got all the Barker issues except one, I believe. Charming characters in a neat little universe.
--- Quote ---Rudy Palais was originally an inker of or highly influenced by the young Reed Crandall at the Iger Shop. I've always liked his work at Ace in the mid-late '40s where he might have been inked by or influenced by Warren Kremer. By the '50s, his sweating villains had become a mockery for me. I prefer the earlier Palais.
--- End quote ---
I like it all. In some ways I prefer the later Palais art, precisely for its over-heated qualities. Go figure. I was oblivious to him until I became better acquainted with his work through Alter Ego, Tales Too Terrible to Tell (horror reprint series), and GAC, etc. In hindsight, he seems a precursor of a certain strain of underground comix (Greg Irons comes to mind) in the same way that Ghastly Engels was.
--- Quote ---I've never liked to make a "favorites" list because the work of most artists varies over time, like Kremer. I prefer a certain period to others. Matt Baker in 1944 and 1959 is not so great, but Matt Baker in 1950-56 can't be beat. Some, like Al Williamson, brought a verve to anything they did, be it Toby John Wayne stores, EC sf classics, Atlas jungle girls, Charlton quick and dirty westerns or King Flash Gordons. I love it all. It's only when he adopts the John Prentice a la Alex Raymond style that he loses me. The art is great, but the life is missing. Some Maxwell Elkan strips are masterpieces, others mediocre at best. Early, pre-1946 Krigstein is crude beyond belief, but by 1948 he's a master who was never truly recognized later by Gaines and Feldstein and never understood by Kurtzman, the man with whom he SHOULD have had the most in common.
--- End quote ---
Williamson was an artist I could enjoy and appreciate, but he was never one of my top five or even ten. He's one of those artists that seemed to me to be "too good" for the crappy printing that most comics suffered from. Some artists like Eisner compensated for the lousy printing by going for bold line-work. But Williamson had a lot of delicate line-work that, more often than not, got massacred by the crude coloring and printing. Frazetta also suffered from this, too often.
The thing is that in my case, when I was a young UG artist learning how to construct decent stories (in a milieu that favored all-in-one artist creators who also wrote and lettered their own work), I found myself learning more of what I wanted to be able to do from Eisner, Cole, Kurtzman, and Nordling, than from artists like Williamson (whose style I didn't wish to emulate, mostly because I felt little capacity for that style).
--- Quote ---I quite literally woke up one morning circa 1974 and suddenly "GOT" Alex Toth. Up til then, I'd never understood the fuss. I guess I had to grow up. Within a year I'd acquired almost everything he'd done from 1949 to 1960. He and Williamson are passionate favorites.
--- End quote ---
Toth is great. No question. A cartoonist's cartoonist in that there is so much skill distilled into such spare, well-chosen line-work and great spotting of blacks.
Drusilla lives!:
--- Quote from: JVJ on May 18, 2010, 05:04:44 AM ---... never left me wanting more - which, I guess, is my personal criteria for a great artist. ...
Artists I really enjoy, but are "Great Unknowns" to the majority of comic fans are...
--- End quote ---
William Ekgren IMO.
Just a few pieces of published work exist, and yet I want more (and to know more about him as an artist as well). What an outlandish, odd style... like some sorta take on "Divisionism," very unique and very memorable IMO.
http://www.ha.com/comics/newsletters/images/112807_2.jpgAnd of course there's always Basil...
http://lambiek.net/artists/w/wolverton/wolverton_powerhousepepper.jpg... you'd be surprised how many modern comics fans don't know him.
But both (particularly in Ekgren's case) are more "illustrators" than golden age comic book artists... although Wolverton did do a ton of work back then.
I've also recently gained an appreciation for the cover work of Maurice Whitman... some of his stuff was really nice... so was Bob Powell's cover work on The Shadow comics. But again, none of these guys would even have a shot at making my "top five" if I had to choose (except maybe Wolverton).
narfstar:
I have to agree that I only see Kirby shine when inked by Simon. None of his other stuff grabs me so there must be something to the contribution of Simon. If every penciler inked there own work this would be a somewhat easier topic. I am never sure where one stops and the other starts and the quality can vary so much depending on the inker. The inker often deserves more credit or blame than they get.
builderboy:
--- Quote from: narfstar on May 18, 2010, 07:10:00 PM ---I have to agree that I only see Kirby shine when inked by Simon....The inker often deserves more credit or blame than they get.
--- End quote ---
While my introduction to comics came during Silver Age publication, I fell in love with Joe Sinnott's interpretation of Kirby. Strong, weighty, and seemingly didn't lose Kirby's finesse as did guys like Chic Stone or Colletta.
It was only later when I discovered Sinnott's Golden Age pencils that I discovered why he was so potent. Maybe not a prolific or consistent penciller (I am not qualified to say), but the work I saw, I loved.
I wish I could catch the 'I love Alex Toth' bug; I don't get an immediate appreciation of what he's doing. Maybe it's like those 3-D books that you have to stare at a long time ???
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version