Digital Comic Museum
General Category => Comic Related Discussion => Topic started by: davodonnell on May 11, 2011, 08:05:13 AM
-
A new contender for the title of the first comic ever has emerged from Donegal, Ireland. It's been called the J O'Donnell Faustus and dates from 1683. The Images themselves as well as videos about them can be found here http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-J-ODonnell-Faustus/108567245898513. What do you think?
-
Very interesting!
Thanks davo :)
-
A new contender for the title of the first comic ever has emerged from Donegal, Ireland. It's been called the J O'Donnell Faustus and dates from 1683. The Images themselves as well as videos about them can be found here http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-J-ODonnell-Faustus/108567245898513. What do you think?
At first glance, and based on my massive knowledge of 17th Century drawing (i.e. none), I'd say they look fake. But that's just me.
-
To be honest i just read about this in an Irish Newspaper and thought it was interesting. I dont't know what to think about it being genuine or not, from what i can remember reading tests were being done on the images to exactly prove their date, preliminary tests said it would be somewhere between 150-300 years old.
What about it looks fake? I really am not familiar with iillustration from that time either
-
To be honest i just read about this in an Irish Newspaper and thought it was interesting. I dont't know what to think about it being genuine or not, from what i can remember reading tests were being done on the images to exactly prove their date, preliminary tests said it would be somewhere between 150-300 years old.
What about it looks fake? I really am not familiar with iillustration from that time either
I'm mainly just kidding around. Something about the style of the art strikes me as more of an amateur, rather than the kinds of drawings I'd expect from 16-whatever. Look modern, but simplistic. But, again, I know nuh-thing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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!! ”
-
I use the quote From quote from Crumb to show that shaky panel borders might be due to the lack of a steady hand rather than a stylistic preference.