General Category > Comic Related Discussion
The First Comic Ever?
davodonnell:
Maybe yeah though i wouldn't agree that the age of a piece of art is directly related to quality, this might be more loosely drawn than other pieces of illustration at that time. Also if it was from that time the artist might not have been formerly trained, Ireland would have been quite rural at that time and probobly wouldn't have the same system of Artists and Apprentices that England did.
jfglade:
The scans are interesting to say the least, and it will be interesting to see not only how old this turns out to be but speculation about why it was created.
John C:
Proceeding from the assumption that it's fake (I have no idea), the things that strike me as odd are the squiggly panel borders and the modern proportions.
The borders are weird just because I can't recall seeing such a thing before, and I know that pulling a pen towards you makes vertical straight lines pretty easy.
The proportions of the people strike me as very odd, in that the anatomy looks simplified, but accurate. My (limited) understanding has always been that, apart from some special cases like da Vinci, artists drew things more in terms of emotional relevance, prior to the invention of the camera. And those exceptions were generally fascinated by detail, which this doesn't have. In that, it basically looks like a comic book, which is...weird, especially in contrast to the panels.
But, there are always going to be exceptions, so oddities aren't always evidence of a hoax, but I can see why someone looking at it might think something's suspicious.
Roygbiv666:
--- Quote from: John C on May 13, 2011, 04:58:04 AM ---Proceeding from the assumption that it's fake (I have no idea), the things that strike me as odd are the squiggly panel borders and the modern proportions.
The borders are weird just because I can't recall seeing such a thing before, and I know that pulling a pen towards you makes vertical straight lines pretty easy.
The proportions of the people strike me as very odd, in that the anatomy looks simplified, but accurate. My (limited) understanding has always been that, apart from some special cases like da Vinci, artists drew things more in terms of emotional relevance, prior to the invention of the camera. And those exceptions were generally fascinated by detail, which this doesn't have. In that, it basically looks like a comic book, which is...weird, especially in contrast to the panels.
But, there are always going to be exceptions, so oddities aren't always evidence of a hoax, but I can see why someone looking at it might think something's suspicious.
--- End quote ---
If we Goog--er search for 17th Century drawings, we get:
http://www.google.ca/search?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1T4SUNC_enCA384CA385&biw=1660&bih=892&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=17th+century+drawings&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=
which look properly proportioned. I was apparently thinking of a much earlier time period, like the 11th Century:
http://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/history/normans/william-conquest/hastings
I am dumb.
davodonnell:
I think it's important not to mistake 17th century drawing with medieval drawing and what John writes about the panel borders not being perfectly vertical reminds me of a quote from Robert Crumb '“ People are always telling me, “I sure wish I had your talent, but I can’t even draw a straight line!” This is so much utter nonsense! NOBODY can draw a straight line, and any person who tells you he can is a liar, a cheat, and a fraud!! ”
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version