How do you find credits?

[profpike]

I know that some of you have contributed to GCD for its credits for writers and artists. One of my questions is: How do you find that info to begin with? In other words, how do you find out if Jim Mooney did the art for Lash Lightning when there are no credits and Mooney is dead?

[Yoc]

Well I'm not one of this gifted spotters but I've heard it's just a knack developed from ages of looking at their books.  An artist might not have signed a story in the book you are looking at but he did sign another book made around the same time.  A good spotter will recognize an artist's quirks, habits, techniques unique to them and put to the stories together with the name.
DocV, one of the pr-eminent Atlas artspotters keeps binders of photocopied stories sorted by artist and year to check against!  He's also always double checking stories he wasn't sure of in the past to see if he hasn't since learned the name of the artist.  DocV and our JVJ have helped supply credits to several Marvel Archive additions.

Tilliban is a darn good spotter in his own right with Ace Comics I hear - perhaps he can talk about it.

[JVJ (RIP)]

This will sound very flippant, prof, but how do you know that you are eating chocolate or drinking coffee if there is no label on what is on your plate or in your cup? By what it looks like and what it tastes like. That is how I find out that Jim Mooney is drawing a particular episode of Lash Lightning. He has a style that is uniquely his at a particular time in his career and when you have seen enough of his work to learn how that style developed, then you can apply that knowledge to works that are not signed, just as you can drink some liquid and decide that it is coffee (or tea, or coke, or pepsi, or beer, or root beer, or dr. pepper, or whatever - they might all look quite similar on the surface but they will taste differently to you).

I don't believe that it is a "knack". It is more like an art. Or a gift. You either have the ability or the potential for developing it or you don't, but most people will never learn more than a little bit. I can barely play chopsticks on the piano. I will NEVER learn more than that. I can't. I don't know why, but I have no gift for music. I have the gift of recognizing artists. I don't know why I have that, either.

If you can develop the ability, more power to you. There are too few people with the "knack" today, and we need many more to carry on the research especially now that sites like DCM are making old comics more available to more people. Where are the new art spotters? I can only say that I treasure the friendship I've made with Tillmann and the fun we have going through each batch of comics for scanning twice a year. See you in a month, my friend.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Yoc]

Ah, just the man I was hoping might say something!

Thanks for the reply Jim and I hope you and Tilliban enjoy another fantastic visit.

[profpike]

I didn't think that was a flippant answer at all. I'm sure that after a while you can develop that ability. In my own limited experience, I know that early Joe Kubert has a very distinctive look to it. Carl Burgos does, early Jack Kirby does. I'm still relatively new to the "hardcore" Golden Age scene, but I'm hoping I can develop some of that. Thank you.

[narfstar]

I think some have a knack but I think some can be learned. Just like the old adage that a bank teller knows a counterfeit not by studying counterfeit but being very familiar with the real thing so much. I think if you look at the work of an artist enough it becomes familiar. But there are some that jump out.

[bchat]

As with anything that can be learned, you have to want to do it badly enough to get good at it, and not give-up whenever it gets difficult.  It helps to have a good teacher, but with huge amounts of dedication, you can learn how to identify artists on your own.

[JVJ (RIP)]

I would VERY much like to believe what you say to be true, guys. The historic record, sadly, falls on my side of the fence. The major artists might become recognizable to many, and a few eccentric stylists, but the vast majority of journeymen (and women) purveyors of the comic craft remain nameable to a select few and seem sadly destined to stay that way. When Morey is distinguishable from Moritz, Battefield from Bachle, Waldman from Forte; when Mooney's funny animal work is as distinct as his superhero style; when Warren Kremer and Louis Zansky jump out at you in 1940s Ace books; when the role call of artists being discussed doesn't stop with the names the everybody knows from credits in the '60s, and you know how to recognize most of them by their style, then I'll have more hope.

The whole Art ID threads here at DCM are witness to the lack of participation/motivation in this topic. I am not so convinced that it can be learned. Suffice it say that in 45 years of trying to TEACH the subject, I "might" be working with my first trainable student. And he may have entered the "classroom" simply in need of refinement, not training. So I wait with bated breath the proof of your contention that it is a learn-able skill set, guys. Please, please SHOW ME!

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[JonTheScanner]

There are certain artists whom I recognize immediately. Carmine Infantino, Gil Kane and Mike Sekowsky are three of these. There are others I'll never learn.  I wonder if they have very distinctive styles or if is more that they were the artists I saw so many times reading and re-reading their stories when I was young and impressionable.

[bchat]

The whole Art ID threads here at DCM are witness to the lack of participation/motivation in this topic. I am not so convinced that it can be learned. Suffice it say that in 45 years of trying to TEACH the subject, I "might" be working with my first trainable student. And he may have entered the "classroom" simply in need of refinement, not training. So I wait with bated breath the proof of your contention that it is a learn-able skill set, guys. Please, please SHOW ME!

Peace, Jim (|:{>

The key word you use is "motivation", and you seem to be equating a lack of motivation with an inability to learn this particular skill.  I believe that the vast majority of people simply don't care enough to spend the countless hours it would take them to get to the point where they would be able to identify unsigned work from lesser-known artists.  Personally, I enjoy being able to identify the uncredited works of the handful of artists I've gotten into in my lifetime, but I'm not willing to learn about artists I care nothing about simply because I'm not motivated enough to do so, not because I cannot see the differences in how any given artists draws a figure or a background.

When Morey is distinguishable from Moritz, Battefield from Bachle, Waldman from Forte; when Mooney's funny animal work is as distinct as his superhero style; when Warren Kremer and Louis Zansky jump out at you in 1940s Ace books; when the role call of artists being discussed doesn't stop with the names the everybody knows from credits in the '60s, and you know how to recognize most of them by their style, then I'll have more hope.

The sad truth is that people have to care about those artists' work first before they can go on to learn how to identify what those artists produced.

[narfstar]

I think bchat hit the mark Jim. It is a matter of the time and effort. I think if a large enough collection of an artist was put together then that artist could get recognized by someone that wanted to put in the time.

[larrytalbot]

I tend to agree with Jim on this question. The ability to recognize similarities & differences in visual patterns, such as artwork, must surely depend on memory capacity. Since this will vary from person to person, those blessed with high capacity will be more successfull than others with lower capacity - granted same motivation, etc.

[SuperScrounge]

I think it's half instinct/half learned. Humans are visual creatures and pattern recognition is something we do.

What's weird is when I start recognizing artists I wouldn't have thought I knew that well.

In the last year I was cataloging some Archie Comics Digests for the GCD and I started recognizing some stories as Dan Decarlo's work (not all correct, of course, but maybe 75%). The shape of the heads/appearance of the eyes is a good indicator, but the best indicators would be a character jumping up in the air or running. He just had a way of drawing those actions that I haven't seen in the Decarlo draw-alikes.

The weirdest one was when I was cataloging Golden Comics Digest #18. As I was reading the Barney Bear & Benny Burro story a voice in the back of my head said, "Carl Barks." What?!? I never considered myself a Barks spotter, this wasn't a Duck story, and it wasn't even Disney characters, how could it be Barks? As I read the story, though it felt like a Donald Duck story, but the main visual that sold me on the possibility was a drawing of Barney & Benny in a car in the distance looking just like similar scenes of Donald in a car in the distance. Doing a little research I found that, yep, Barks did do some Benny Burro stories. Huh? Go fig?

[JVJ (RIP)]

If all you are trying to do is to flex your own art spotting muscles, guys, I certainly can't and won't argue with you. But I will point out the innumerable Infantino and Barks, etc. indexes that have preceded your efforts and which could save you time and effort - which I STILL maintain does not equate with really learning how to ID an artist. Studying can get you to recognize surface tells at best - often the first target of swipers.

MY concern is to EXPAND the knowledge-base and fill in the GCD blanks - goals a little more hobby-centric. I guess I find the "motivation" in my love for comics. Always have.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

Well Jim when you get the time Key/Gilmore needs your touch. I recently discovered a small signature for S. Finocchiaro in Action Adventure Comics. He looks like he would pretty easy for you to pick out. I think I could learn to spot more if it were not for the pencil/inker thing. It makes me doubt myself even when I am pretty sure that I am right and it makes me wrong sometimes.  Oh well it is what it is.