General Category > Artist Spotting
Art Spotting in general
josemas:
--- Quote from: JVJ on December 05, 2011, 12:55:48 PM ---
The main problem I have with binders and databases is that, eventually, you have to pretty much know the answer before you use them. I'd have to know where to look - which binder, which time period etc. Because IF I had a binder full of samples of every artist, it would have to somehow be broken down chronologically as well: Jack Kirby in 1940 doesn't look much like Jack Kirby in 1960. Matt Baker in 1945 looks different that Matt Baker in 1953 who looks VERY different from Matt Baker penciling quicky science fiction stories in 1959. Bernie Krigstein is virtually unrecognizable in 1943. Gene Colan changed dramatically in the first decade of his career. When I gave him a copy of his first work in a Wings Comics of 1944, he looked at it and asked me "Why are you giving me this?" despite the fact that he had SIGNED the strip.
So, one sample will NEVER do. But, then, when you come across an unknown style in a 1948 book, you at least narrow your search parameters. Still, if you have pages/entries for EVERY artist, how are you going to find your unknown? Page through what might be THOUSANDS of samples and hope that the style on the crime story you're looking at is similar enough to the superhero story that same artist did six years earlier and signed? Lots of luck.
Doc V's system functions because of Doc V's memory. Would that mine was still that good.
And then there is the problem of artists for whom this is a style but not a name. Hames and I searched for DECADES for the name of our "Mr. Mystery", "Watery Camy", "Stamps Cover Artist" and others for whom we just had "nick names". Now we know them as Mike Suchorsky, W.A. Smith, and Joseph Szokoli, but we're still looking for "The Bubble Artist", "Fox Elkan", "The Great Unknown", and many others. All again tied to memory: finding a story, remembering we'd seen the style before, remembering we'd given it a nickname, remembering the nickname, etc.
A site filled with samples would be wonderful, but you'd have the same problems that GCD and Wikipedia have: who watches over the integrity of the data? Since nobody knows everything and even well-intentioned honest folks often disagree about IDs, it becomes a logistical nightmare to keep such a site pure and accurate.
These notions have been contemplated before, though without the technology that exists today. i would LOVE it if such a site became viable. As often as I can I try to pass on what little (believe me, it's LITTLE) I know with my books or with comments on a DCM scan post. Still, there aren't enough hours in the day to catch everything and, frankly, most of it I DON'T know. I'm certainly open to ideas and willing to help if I can.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
--- End quote ---
One thing that I think could be done here on DCM is to use the Archives and Collections section to build files on artists. You could have them set up by year (which I think is the most practical way for following an artist's growth and style changes). So you could have Matt Baker-1948, Matt Baker-1949, Matt Baker-1950, etc...
Just a thought
Joe
tilliban:
@josemas:
That really strikes me spontaneously as brilliant!
This was every DCM member could contribute his own special artist files.
Maybe we need a new "Artist files"-section...
But it would be a lot of piecework.
In general I was not thinking about a new picture data base of artist samples, but kind of a
blog where everybody can post mysterious art.
Art spottings would be done by posting a comment.
Could be done cost-free, right?
Blogs on blogspot.com are for free - or is it a question of data quantity?
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: larrytalbot on December 06, 2011, 02:51:51 AM ---Re: Discussion of art styles. I'm curious about the Simon & Kirby partnership. In particular, the development of Kirby's style. I was surprised to learn that the artist for the early Captain Marvel Adventures was Jack Kirby. Surprised (& disappointed) because of the amateurish quality of the artwork (compared with that of CC Beck & other Fawcett artists). I take it that Simon was the senior partner because his artwork from this period seemed fluid & professional. Later Kirby art under the Simon & Kirby label tended to look more & more like Simon art. So, I take it that Kirby was learning his craft from Simon & came to emulate him. It seems to me that it was only much later that Kirby evolved his own dynamic style easily distinguishable from Simon's. This Kirby 'timeline' is just a personal impression & I'm curious to know if there's any truth in it.
--- End quote ---
I've lots more to say on the general topic here, but this post cries out for an immediate response. Your conjectures, IMHO, are 100% backward. Simon could never draw all that well, and certainly not very dynamically. What I've seen of pre-Kirby Simon work is not very "fluid and professional" - the very best of it would be the Fox covers of 1940 and those are poorly staged and very derivative. Kirby goes back three years before Simon even starts (witness his work on Eisner & Iger's strips from 1937). Kirby was the driving force and the real talent of the team - again IMHO.
The Capt. Marvel job is an anomaly and in no way indicates the capabilities of either artist.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: josemas on December 06, 2011, 09:52:23 AM ---
One thing that I think could be done here on DCM is to use the Archives and Collections section to build files on artists. You could have them set up by year (which I think is the most practical way for following an artist's growth and style changes). So you could have Matt Baker-1948, Matt Baker-1949, Matt Baker-1950, etc...
Just a thought
Joe
--- End quote ---
My thoughts on this are: why do we need a file on Matt Baker when we've got DCM and GCD to give us the information? Search for Matt Baker sorted by Date in GCD and then go look on DCM for what you find. Voila, you've got the info. I think we're past that sort of duplicating effort. If people want the info, it's there for them.
What we "need" is not for everybody to be able to identify well-known artists - I think that's pretty much been done, or can be done by anyone who's interested - but some way to put names to styles that haven't been I.D.'d.
Another approach would be to post a couple of pages of an unknown artist every day and get input on what people are seeing or think they are seeing.
My efforts want to focus on adding MORE names to the lexicon or comics or adding more credits to little known artists. YMMV.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
JVJ (RIP):
Three more comments then I'll shut up and let other people talk:
1. I like Tilliban's "post a mystery artist" idea. But too many at once will dilute the effort. Space them out to allow for proper examination.
2. Eric's listing of his ID's on SilverStreak #1 would be a good place to begin. Five or six points of discussion should make for a lively jump start to the project.
3. No offense intended, but your question, LarryTalbot, is one that has been discussed to death in print and on-line for decades. I'd like to keep this "Art Spotting" thread free of any comparative bickering of who is better that whom. If you've read all of the Simon and Kirby and Simon material that's been published, I don't think you'd ask the question. If you haven't, you should do that first so we can discuss things with more shared knowledge. Just not here, okay? [By which I mean please start another thread and discuss it to your heart's content.]
Peace, Jim (|:{>
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version