Digital Comic Museum
General Category => Artist Spotting => Topic started by: srca1941 on December 04, 2011, 10:20:28 PM
-
Your work is very much appreciated Jim. I've been attempting to learn/teach myself art spotting for years, ever since Jerry Bails educated me about the Cazeneuves and Pierce Rice, and pointed out a few spotting tricks to me. Who's Who, and this site as a reference (to double check my identifications against known samples), are invaluable to me. I'm confident enough to make "best guess" attempts with each scan I do, but it is indeed nerve-wracking at times simply because I don't want to accidently contribute to the glut of misinformation already out there. I always try to mark with a question mark when I'm at all uncertain about any I.D., and leave credits as “unknown” when I am really uncertain about something. I know that if I'm not careful I might lead others to bad identifications in the future.
It's always a pleasure to hear from more experienced spotters like yourself, and reassuring when I see you reach the same conclusions I have made, or would make. So it can't be said enough Jim, thank you VERY much for ALL of the contributions you have made to this site, and to fandom in general.
-Eric
-
I agree with scra1941 - art spotting can be a nightmare!
But it is just hard routine.
Jim trained me to spot two dozen ACE artists. I enjoy this very much.
The frustration sets in when you realize that there are hundreds of artists out there.
So every little bit of training helps. The internet helps. GCD and DCM help.
We should open up an "Art Spotters Guild" of people who can recognize "their" artists.
Some specialize in spotting Charlton art, Harvey art, Quality art and so forth...
A list of people and their spotting abilities might help to get in toch with each other.
Imagine sample pages of unknown art being sent around through a mailing list and an international community of spotters taking their shots at it.
This could be fun!
-
An art spotter league is a great idea T!
The Timely/Atlas gang were just lamenting the lack of Harvey spotters the other day.
-
Sounds like fun to me, and a great way to learn to spot more artists!
Personally, I'm best with superhero artists. My weaknesses are humor/funny animal books, and spotting inkers unless they have a really specific style or are associated with pencillers I know well. For instance, I can pick out a few inkers who often worked on Ken Battefield's art at Nedor.
-Eric
-
It's already (as Tillman will attest) getting harder and harder to dredge up the names that go with the styles - and there's no "reference" books that will take you from a style to a name. Sigh...
There may not be a style to name guide, but an artist database (kind of like Who’s Who, but not focused so much on credits) with JPGs of known samples and spotting tips would be possible, and very beneficial. A Wikipedia of comic book artists built by spotters. It would focus on artists' stylistic distinctions, little habits they may have had (like Curt Swan's tendency to draw the middle and ring fingers together), and general ways to spot an artist’s work. Hmm, this could have possibilities…
-Eric
-
DocV keeps binders of the artists he's focused on. I hear they are amazing to see.
I recall seeing some info on spotting Kirby vs Simon is shown on the Kirby Library site.
I Love your ideas Eric - 'make it so.' :)
-
Your work is very much appreciated Jim. I've been attempting to learn/teach myself art spotting for years, ever since Jerry Bails educated me about the Cazeneuves and Pierce Rice, and pointed out a few spotting tricks to me. Who's Who, and this site as a reference (to double check my identifications against known samples), are invaluable to me. I'm confident enough to make "best guess" attempts with each scan I do, but it is indeed nerve-wracking at times simply because I don't want to accidently contribute to the glut of misinformation already out there. I always try to mark with a question mark when I'm at all uncertain about any I.D., and leave credits as “unknown” when I am really uncertain about something. I know that if I'm not careful I might lead others to bad identifications in the future.
It's always a pleasure to hear from more experienced spotters like yourself, and reassuring when I see you reach the same conclusions I have made, or would make. So it can't be said enough Jim, thank you VERY much for ALL of the contributions you have made to this site, and to fandom in general.
-Eric
You're very welcome, Eric.
I learned Pierce Rice from Pierce Rice, and it MAY have been me who taught Jerry. I no longer keep track of such things, if I ever did. Did you know that Rice roomed with Bernie Krigstein for a few months in the early '50s and that there is a one page Harvey Romance story on which they collaborated? I have a wealth of correspondence from him as well as photocopies of his pencils on some Harvey horror stories. Haven't look at that stuff in years.
I'll always remember Pierce as the man who gave me his duplicate copy of Maxfield Parrish's Knave of Hearts. Anyone who doesn't know that that is should look it up!
Oddly enough, I just pointed out on the Timely-Atlas-Marvel board some suspected Pierce Rice penciling on The Destroyer strip in All-Winners #4 and got not a single response. If you have the All-Winners Marvel Masterworks volume, perhaps YOU might give me some feedback. My comment was:
I'm looking at The Destroyer in this issue and I'm positive that Pierce Rice is penciling the last three pages. Can anyone else recognize his work enough to see if he's also penciling the first nine? It's maddeningly similar, but appears to have been finished more tightly by someone like Al Gabriele. Help!
Another interested set of eyes would be welcome.
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 (|:{>
-
An art spotter league is a great idea T!
The Timely/Atlas gang were just lamenting the lack of Harvey spotters the other day.
And yet again none of them asked for information that I probably possess, Yoc. In fact, some of them were saying that if a strip wasn't signed there was no way it COULD be identified for sure. I never want to force my opinion on to anyone, so I pretty much took this statement as a request to shut up and leave them alone.
C'est la vie.
(|:{>
-
A lot to comment on there Jim, so I'll just tackle the Destroyer for now.
That's a good spot. I didn't catch it, probably because the inker(s?) masks Rice so well. One of the things I most associate with Rice are his rubbery hands and wrists. I really see that in this story, particularly this panel from page 4:
(http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9107/allwinnerscomics04destr.jpg)I can also really see him in the girl's faces (Flora) on pages 5, 6, 7, and 12. Her face, and all faces, on page 8 look off, but I suspect that's just the inker. The figures on that page still look like Rice to me.
-Eric
-
Hi Jim,
I recall you asking for opinions on The Destroyer but sadly it was lost in a flood of off-topic baseball and a half dozen other topics all going on at the same time. Like standing in a big party and trying to carry on a conversation with several groups at once. Important points are going to get lost in the noise. That's why I like this SMF forum software where topics can be self-contained though we frequently go off topic as this thread is a good example.
I'm going to break this off from the rest of the 'tilliban and sundancetrance uploads' thread.
I don't recall seeing that comment about 'if it wasn't signed it can't be identified.' That's absurd and I'd have thought shot down on the group. I've been a member there for years Just to read the posts from as die-hard a group of well informed people as exists. The Kirby vs Lee and Ditko vs Lee topics bore me to tears but thankfully don't plague the group as bad as it might have been at one time. Now I just have to ignore the baseball banter.
I hope you'll continue to contribute your thoughts there Jim. I know the majority have a huge respect for your knowledge on so many points.
-Yoc
And yet again none of them asked for information that I probably possess, Yoc. In fact, some of them were saying that if a strip wasn't signed there was no way it COULD be identified for sure. I never want to force my opinion on to anyone, so I pretty much took this statement as a request to shut up and leave them alone.
-
In fact, some of them were saying that if a strip wasn't signed there was no way it COULD be identified for sure.
Ha! If one was going to go that far, why trust the signature...? Or can they not wait for the latest Alan Smithee flick?
-
Thanks for moving this to its own thread Yoc! It's certainly a deserving topic.
As for the "if it wasn't signed it can't be identified" quote, I agree, it's absurd. I can understand it from a legalistic standpoint of there always being room for doubt and debate, but that can still exist even when something IS signed! [EDIT: John beat me to it!]
-Eric
-
What seems to work is having the spotters all look at a questionable page or two and saying 'ok, who did this' And letting people express their opinions. It certainly seems to be knowledge that is very hard to hand down without a LOT of work as Jim pointed out. But he and Hames have been working together for years and their system seems to work. If it could be brought to a digital forum like here it might speed things up for them but that's just a suggestion.
I know I speak for the staff when I say Jim is an incredibly generous and valued member of DCM (and GAC) and he's ALWAYS welcome to share his thoughts on anything he'd like to.
-Yoc
-
There is a lot of time and visual memory involved in spotting, and I think someone has to be pretty detail oriented to pick up the skill, but it can be learned. When I'm trying to I.D. an issue, such as one I'm posting here, the first thing I do is look for a signature, or initials. (Assuming it's an artist I can't spot right off the bat.) Failing those, I search Who's Who and see who is known to have done that particular feature or series. From there I eliminate or confirm artists I am familiar with. If I eliminate all the artists I know, then I look up the bodies of work of the artists I'm unfamiliar with, find something that I know they did (either in my collection or here) and start comparing the work.
If the known work is similar to what I'm trying to I.D., then I fall back to what Jerry Bails told me to do, and look at the ears. Even though artists change their styles over the course of their careers, or will use house styles and stock poses when drawing main/recurring characters, they almost always seem to draw their ears the same. If the artist in the unknown sample draws ears the same way as in the known sample I am comparing to, then I know I may be on to something, and will look for other similarities. If the ears are not the same, then I look closer anyway, as inkers can often cause discrepancies like that. If the two samples are close enough (and that is where it gets really subjective), then I will usually attribute the work to the artist, but put a question mark behind the credit to indicate that the attribution is only a best guess. If the works are sort of similar, but I still have significant doubts (again, subjective), then I leave the credit as “unknown.” It’s hardly an exact science, and relies a lot on gut instinct, but it is a place to start.
-Eric
-
It's difficult to explain, Eric,
and I don't want to in any way disparage your techniques and approach, but what I "see" is the WAY the artist draws (not elbows or ears or girls or any one thing). You're absolutely right that inkers hide an awful lot (often quite awfully), but the one thing that is the hardest to hide is the story-telling and what I call the "body positions". Looking at that one Pierce Rice Destroyer panel, the way the bodies are flung around the panel, with elbows flying and (well-said) rubbery limbs, it simply screams Pierce Rice.
In addition to your other "tells", the Who's Who is the most relevant in that one needs to understand the career paths of each artist and to get a feel for whether or not there is an historic possibility that he or she could be working for this company at this time. I was just looking at some Timely work from late 1942 and early 1943 that has yet to be identified and I am nearly convinced that it is early Gil Kane. I went to Gary Groth's TCJ interview with Kane to learn what I could of his early career and it's possible (despite Groth not pinning him down on dates) that he was at Timely freelancing at that time. The WW has him there in 1943 and not on the features I was reviewing.
Which brings up another point: the Who's Who is NOT the last word on the subject. It's a beginning and an incredibly grand and useful one, but it's incomplete and occasionally in error. Which mean YOU might be right and Bails might be wrong. A month or so before his death, Hames and I had finally convinced Jerry that L. Bing was NOT Munson Paddock. Proof positive, not argument on Jerry's part, well done, etc. Jerry died before removing the entry and it remains "permanently" ensconced in the WW to this day. "m just sayin'.
I like your approach of "eliminating artists you're familiar with". I think that's a wise approach. So many people spot a panel or a figure that reminds them of someone and say, well, it must be so and so. Just look at that panel - totally ignoring the rest of the strip that couldn't possibly have been drawn by said artist. And there's always what I call "the story." You have to be able to explain a credible scenario that allows the artist to be working at this company at this time. For instance, it would not be easy to come up with a story that would explain a Gil Kane story at Atlas in 1958.
Sadly, there are simply too many unknowns for Yoc's suggestion of a posted page with solicited opinions to work. Believe it or not, there are as many "unknowns" as there are "knowns" in comics from 1936-1960. Most people won't want to accept that fact, but it's true. I'd welcome someone starting such a site, but how do you organize it? It's hard to alphabetize an unknown...
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Once I become familiar with an artist's work I can usually see the way he draws as you describe. Ones like Pierce Rice, Ken Battefield, Ed Moritz, Maurice Gutwirth, etc. that I've been seeing since I started getting into GA comics, those I can spot looking at the whole body of the page. For ones I am not as familiar with, or have never seen before, that is when I have to study ears and other little "tells." Once I can spot those, then it's like a key opening a lock, and I can start seeing other things.
And I agree, Who's Who is a guide, not a bible. I frequently come across attributions that are off by a year, or are not listed at all. Take Daredevil Battles Hitler for instance. The GCD listings are not even close to accurate, and Who's Who doesn't even list most of the folks I've spotted as having done Daredevil in 1941. My attributions for that story are:
Chapter 1 (DD & Silver Streak): George Mandel
Chapter 2 (DD & The Claw): Unknown*
Chapter 3 (DD & Lance Hale): Harry Sahle
Chapter 4 (DD & Dickie Dean): Frank Borth
Chapter 5 (DD & Cloud Curtis): Emil Gershwin
Chapter 6 (DD & Pirate Prince): Harry Anderson (signed)
*I can’t shake the feeling that chapter 2 looks familiar, but I can’t place it. Maybe it just looks that way because I’ve studied it for so long. The closest I’ve come is possibly Edd Ashe, but I’m not convinced enough yet. I need to look at more of his work.
-Eric
-
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.
-
Don't judge Kirby on his Captain Marvel. That's a case where he was supposed to follow the house style, which was still in flux by the way. I believe CMA #1 would have come out between Whiz #14 and 15. Beck was starting to solidify his style by then, but wasn't quite there yet. Another factor is Dick Briefer inked that issue. Years ago when I first learned that, and saw the book in Theakston's Complete Jack Kirby, it didn't really register because I wasn't familiar with Briefer. Looking at is right now, Briefer's influence is quite obvious to me, especially in the first story.
-Eric
-
Larry, there is a Very indepth look at the evolution of Simon and Kirby's artwork together on the Simon and Kirby blog here -
http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/simonandkirby/ (http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/simonandkirby/)
It's a fascinating read!
-Yoc
Re: Discussion of art styles. I'm curious about the Simon & Kirby partnership. In particular, the development of Kirby's style.
-
Don't judge Kirby on his Captain Marvel. That's a case where he was supposed to follow the house style, which was still in flux by the way. I believe CMA #1 would have come out between Whiz #14 and 15. Beck was starting to solidify his style by then, but wasn't quite there yet. Another factor is Dick Briefer inked that issue. Years ago when I first learned that, and saw the book in Theakston's Complete Jack Kirby, it didn't really register because I wasn't familiar with Briefer. Looking at is right now, Briefer's influence is quite obvious to me, especially in the first story.
-Eric
Another factor is that Kirby's workload at this time was enormous. According to Greg Theakston (in his recent two-part bio of Kirby-Jack Magic :The Life and Art of Jack Kirby) Simon and Kirby already were turning out about fifty pages a month of material for Timely and the work for Fawcett was done on top of this! Kirby is quoted as saying he was turning out as much as nine pages a day!
It's no wonder some of the material looks rushed.
It was!
Best
Joe
-
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 (|:{>
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
-
@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?
-
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.
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 (|:{>
-
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
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 (|:{>
-
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 (|:{>
-
Hi Jim,
If you've got a few pages of a specific 'mystery artist' you'd like to track down how about starting a new numbered topic and share the samples there?
Ie - Name this artist - mystery scanner #1' or something like that. Each artist getting their own topic as time goes on.
And yes, Larry, we don't want to see bickering over the merits of Kirby, Simon or Lee. They seem to turn into hot button topics on most other boards. Let's keep this topic of general art spotting low key and none contentious as much as possible. Thanks.
:)
-
Hi Jim,
If you've got a few pages of a specific 'mystery artist' you'd like to track down how about starting a new numbered topic and share the samples there?
Ie - Name this artist - mystery scanner #1' or something like that. Each artist getting their own topic as time goes on.
And yes, Larry, we don't want to see bickering over the merits of Kirby, Simon or Lee. They seem to turn into hot button topics on most other boards. Let's keep this topic of general art spotting low key and none contentious as much as possible. Thanks.
:)
Amen, Yoc.
Here's a thought. Go the scan of SilverStreak #1 and pull out a couple of pages from each of the first three chapters and put them into three different "mystery artist" threads with Eric's attributions for each as the second post in each thread. Go from there.
(|:{>
-
From side discussion in an upload thread, to a topic, to a separate board in just a few days! Talk about a meteoric rise! :o
-Eric
-
Yep, when I see a good idea I think it's worth moving on it!
I'm starting the Daredevil Battles Hitler Mystery Artist topics now.
:)
-
One of my ideas to differentiate GAC and DCM is an artist centric section. DCM has character archives. GAC may have artist archives. Watch for changes coming to GAC. I started an art ID site. Would welcome visits and suggestions
http://narfstar.cwahi.net/ArtID/
-
You might want to check that URL Narf.
-
Jack Kirby & Early Captain Marvel Panels:
Thanks! everyone for all your info on Kirby. It cleared up a long standing question in my mind about the odd early Cap Marvel artwork attributed to Kirby.
SRCA1941: Your pointing out that Briefer inked Kirby's pencils. It looks like he took broad liberties in his inking & knowingly or unknowingly transformed Kirby art into a hybrid Briefer art. (Possibly under the pressure of the big workload mentioned by Josemas). Yes, I do see more Briefer than Kirby in those panels!
Yoc: The Simon-Kirby blog you steered me to had early examples of Kirby pencils that looked nothing like the anomalous Cap Marvels that had long confused me about Kirby.
JVJ: Jim, I'm not very knowledgeable about the artists. I just enjoy reading comic books. The question I raised seemed pertinent to this thread & the answers I got cleared up the issue for me. From those odd Cap Marvel panels attributed to Kirby I had mistakenly assumed that Simon was the more seasoned artist. But, after seeing early Kirby artwork, I now realize that he was at least par with Simon. Your own statement (reply #22 Dec 6) is an apt summation:
"The Capt. Marvel job is an anomaly and in no way indicates the capabilities of either artist."
Thanks!
-
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 (|:{>
Well I used Baker as an example because most people (certainly the people on this forum anyway) are familiar with him but the concept could just as easily be used on less well known artists. Having files with concentrations of known examples of any artist's work divided by years will give people a chance to more quickly familiarize themselves with that particular artist.
Yes one can go through GCD and then DCM or GAC in tracking down artists but I think that this would help speed up the process of being able to art spot particular artists.
Certainly agree with you that trying to put names to the many unknowns is desirable and the artist file concept could be used this way too- only applying the sort of nicknames that you and Hames used to the files. Maybe then as more people become familiar with these "unknown's" styles it will increase the chance of someone eventually finding an obscure pulp or slick or whatever that the same artist signed and thus giving us a name to go with the "unknown".
Best
Joe
-
Hi gang,
I'd like to welcome any artist collections on DCM.
And this might be another good way to share scans of any Mystery Artist's work as well.
Just collect and create a file and upload just as always but put them in the Archives and Collections section with a name like 'Mystery Artist #xx' and inside the description area list which books all the scans came from when known.
Just a thought.
-Yoc
-
I certainly agree that there's great value in collecting scans of individual artists over time, Joe. I'm not sure that the GCD/DCM Viewer approach is all that time-consuming (I use it ALL the time), but that is a personal preference because I want to see the entire strip, not a selected page or two.
Yoc's post with the links to the viewer files are a simple compromise, BUT you would need BOTH because I would imagine that the main use of the scans would be to help someone identify a story that they don't know who drew. To learn how to recognize an artist, I'd vote for the GCD/DCM approach.
To match up a style you're looking at (e.g. possibly George Mandel on chapter one of Daredevil vs Hitler for example), and Eric hadn't given us George Mandel's name, how does one go about using the tool we'd be creating with these example scans? That's the key question.
Yes, collecting scans from known artists over time is fantastic.
Yes, collecting examples of unknowns over time is fantastic, too.
And how do we go from those scans to matching up a comic story with a sample scan? The more samples we collect of more artists over more years just gives us a whole slew of pictures to plow through hoping for a match that we can identify.
It would be an incredible tool for learning the styles of artist - IF you can remember them. And it would be an incredible tool for finding who did an unsigned story - IF you can remember the style and connect it to the name. No matter how you look at it, it requires a great deal of memory as well as the ability to distinguish between mannerisms and style points.
I don't want to put a damper on this project, but I'd hope we can think it through before rushing off to make a million scans. What are your thoughts on how it would/could be used? The patterns of use will help determine how it should function/look.
Yoc - again, I question how one gets from the scan you're looking to identify to the scan someone has posted as 'Mystery Artist #xx'? Other than flipping through dozens (hundreds?) of scans, how can it function? Think of what functionality we're trying to implement and how we can/will use it.
my 2¢
(|:{>
-
Well, there's no way around the memory issue.
What I'd love to see happen in this new section is some pages are shared or a file uploaded and we ask everyone to suggest a name to who it might be. Much like is done on the Timely-Atlas group.
Bounce the ideas around and see if a consensus can be reached.
If they are - let GCD know and let them update their listings.
There's no way around needing to memorize so many things and it only works if we can get as many of the 'expert' art spotters out there to participate. I'd love to see Hames join in if it were possible.
-Yoc
-
The reality is, Yoc,
that there are far more willing students out there than there are capable teachers. How many people have commented on Eric's "possibly George Mandel" post? How many speculations about Chapter 2? Zero. The problem is that the level of knowledge is fixed. Nobody seems to be learning any more than what they already know. That's what I'm TRYING to do - learn new names/styles.
What I don't want is to be the only one checking a dozen posts and ID'ing the art. It's possible that I might be able to do it, but it rather takes away from the continuity of my personal projects. Simply put, I don't want to be the only one playing the game. As you may have noticed, I haven't posted about the Daredevil pages, and don't intend to without some serious discussion that I can join.
There was an entire article about George Mandel in Alter Ego. Someone must have SOME idea of what his art looks like. Perhaps because he never drew "good girl art" nobody cares. The point is, unless this is an active, vibrant thread that I might learn from, I'm resistant to just giving the only opinion on something. Eric's post is great. Someone's thrown out an opinion/guess on an entire book yet it's elicited little response from anyone. That's disappointing to me. Not surprising, though. As I said, the level of knowledge is pretty stagnant. Getting past that inertia and moving into new information is VERY difficult.
Folks like to learn, and so do I. Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the Silverstreak stories that have been posted?
(|:{>
-
The way I see an artist's file being set up that would be most useful is where we would include all of a particular artists known work (entire stories, not just isolated pages) in the files. Prolific artists who worked for many years would have files for each separate year. Less prolific artists could have their work broken down into periods.
We would not have to make a million scans to do this either as we could use the scans already on the site to build these files in much the same way as some of the guys have already been building the character driven files in the archive.
As new titles are added to the library the artist files could be updated when ever a new story or two of their's turns up.
The memory thing is always going to be there but having easy files to refer to can only help. Also the more people we have looking at these files the better. Some people may initially just check out the files out of curiosity and eventually turn into art spotters. It's all good.
As we run across a story where the artist is not already IDed at GCD we can run a topic on it through the forum and hopefully someone can offer and answer.
As to those "unknowns" that Jim and Hames only have nicknames for if they can supply a list of those particular artists credits we could build files under the nicknames until such a time (if ever) we can actually add a real name to the file.
Just some ideas I'm tossin' out.
Best
Joe
-
Hi Jim,
I see your points and I know you're a busy guy. I love that you'll sometimes spot the artists for some of the uploads being made.
Personally, I'm very limited in my confidence to comment on most artists. I think like many it safer to shut up that look a fool.
I've got a feel for Walt Kelly, Briefer is usually safe to spot, and my confidence on Baker is now shaky.
I agree we need more 'experts' here but I can't force them to join in. We've built the baseball diamond in the corn field. It's up to them to start showing up to play ball.
My hope is Henry, DocV and some of the others out there decide to join the discussion. Perhaps some others I'm not as familiar with.
Fingers crossed.
-
I suggest that you try to set something up on a very small scale and then try to use it, guys. As I have been trying to say, it how it will be used that will determine the approach to take - form follows function.
And I will reiterate that we really already have access to "all of the work of an artist sorted by year". Adding more links to the same data base from a different entry screen sounds like a lot of work for an unspecified reward to me. If I want to see what scans are available for art identified as George Mandel, it takes one GCD search for penciller sorted by date. If you can automate that and a way to jump to the preview of the comic, that would save someone a lot of work. (The first thing you'll notice is that the sequence of the GCD entry might not match the sequence in the scan...)
But my basic question remains: how would this be used?
1. By people trying to learn Geo. Mandel's style?
2. By people trying to ascertain whether a specific story was by George Mandel?
3. Or by people trying to figure out who is drawing a story (where George Mandel is the answer)?
If the first or the second, okay. It will work. If the third, it won't. No matter how complete you make the files/scans of Mandel's work, one would have to be inordinately lucky to stumble across his work amidst the work of dozens, if not hundreds, of named and unnamed artists in the database.
What the third requires is:
1. knowing what George Mandel looks like.
2. recalling that knowledge when faced with the story in #3.
Knowledge. And Memory. And the most difficult of those is Knowledge. Trying to figure out what constitutes a George Mandel drawing (vs. one by his look-alike brother, Alan) is savagely difficult. Ask those on the boards here like Tilliban or Narfstar just how hard it is to keep all of those traits firm and straight in your mind.
You said it yourself, Yoc: you can recognize a couple of well-known guys. Trouble is, it won't be the well-known guys that people will be trying to ID. They're the easy ones.
Try a small-scale test. See whether it helps anybody.
(|:{>
-
I see all your points Jim.
I don't know what more DCM can do as a site to help the process.
GCD is certainly welcome to link to pages in their own discussions which must cover the same ground as here.
Frankly if more spotters don't step forward this section will be a pretty quiet place.
If anyone has suggestions on what more we can do here let me know.
-
Nope. I will say that I'm more than willing to look at others' guesses on other pages/stories and offer opinions. Even if they have no guess. We may not come across any new names here (and I wasn't expecting to anyway), but there are still plenty of stories by the artists that HAVE been named, that haven't been properly credited yet, or often miscredited. I think anything helps.
-Eric
-
I think it's great to have this topic now.
Just a few things:
First: Patience, folks. It's out there now, a beginning has been made.
There won't be answers rolling in overnight.
Second: Spread the word.
If you know people taking interest in or knowing about art spotting, contact them actively.
Court them into joining DCM.
Third: What may be helpful, is a kind of a register or listing of "experts" and their fields of expertise.
Just to get an overview who's out there and what they might know.
In my case - for example - that would be just early 50s (and mostly pre-code horror art).
Still working on my LEAGUE OF ART SPOTTERS - normal folks, but with a supervision for certain artwork.
:D
-
Well, as I said, my expertise is probably superhero series. No particular company, but I have seen a lot of Nedor, Novelty Press, Fawcett, and Lev Gleason...
-Eric
-
Potentially, people are talking about two different things here, and I'm not 100% clear which it is.
1 - An "Artist Appreciation File", where the work of one artist is gathered in an archive type format. While focused on one artist, this would be more of a "spotlight" type of file as opposed to a teaching tool.
2 - An "Artist Identification File", where samples of artwork are gathered into one file to be viewed by anyone who wishes to learn how a person goes about identifying an artist's work. Obviously, this type of file would serve no use to anyone who just wants to read comic book stories.
If everyone is talking about creating "Artist Appreciation Files", then just ignore the rest of my post.
It may be easy to say "Such & Such artist has had their work identified already", but that statement does nothing to help someone new learn how to identify an artist's work. If the goal is to identify the "unknown artists", then some type of effort should be made in order to increase the number of people able to acquire this "skill", without alienating anyone because they haven't figured-out how to learn to ID artists on their own.
IF the files are going to be used to teach others how to identify a particular artist, then they have to have a place to start the learning process. With popular artists like Matt Baker, Jack Cole or (pick your favorite artist), someone new to this can be taught the techniques of "art spotting" by seeing examples of artwork that has already been identified. Without a basic understanding of what they should be looking for, someone new to "art spotting" is going to have a tough time being able to identify or give an opinion on an "unknown artist". In addition, there is no good reason to not have everything a person needs in order to learn how to identify an artist's work all in one place. If they want to see additional examples of an artist's work, or even see full stories, then there is no good reason why a simple text file cannot be added to the "Artist Identification File" so that someone who wants to learn how to ID artwork doesn't have to jump back & forth between multiple sites. The "Greatest Art Spotter" of all time may be walking through the door tomorrow, why make them jump through any hoops if they don't have to?
In my opinion, an "Artist Identification File" doesn't need to contain any complete stories. Splash pages, covers, page layouts, figure drawing, backgrounds and inking (if the artist was also an inker) should be the focus of an "Artist Identification File", not writing & storytelling. One file should be able to cover a single artist's entire career, making it easier to see how an artist's style progressed/evolved over their lifetime.
Of course, all of the above is just my opinion ... take it or leave it.
-
I'm glad we're working on this topic. I've been fascinated with the Iger studio for awhile and all the question marks in the Grand Comic Database. It seems like Mr Iger encouraged his staff to copy or trace the styles of the better artists adding a mass of confusion as to who did what or what part of the panel was done by whom. For me, I'm focusing on Maurice Whitman who worked for 10 years at Iger doing a variety of characters and covers. An old index by Al Dellinges with Henry Steele gave most of the credit for the Jungle covers between 132 and 163 to Whitman. This has been disputed by Jim V. I've put together a publication of covers and splashs so that I can flip back and forth between images. Any strong evidence as to which of these covers Mr Whitman made a strong contribution to would be helpful as I present my case to Jim. I've also got a run of Alter Egos to plow thru for data.
-
I agree with you regarding #s 1 & 2, bchat,
but I was hoping for #3 - a place where one could go to find out who drew a story.
I guess I don't understand the benefit of someone studying, say, the work of Gene Colan to learn how to identify it. After all these years, how many undiscovered Gene Colan stories are there? So, yes, you could assemble scads of Colan samples and hope that someone would study them and learn what makes a Colan story. And then what?
MAYBE that will translate into a "lesson" that will eventually develop into a class on Art Spotting, but I don't see it happening. It SHOULD be happening. More people should be learning the skill/art since there has never been a time when MORE comic samples have been so easily available. Yet it's hard to name more than a couple of people who have contributed to sorting out Golden Age artist credits - and most of them were doing it long before GAC or DCM came along. What new Art Spotters have developed? And how do we make that happen?
My experience, and I can only speak for myself, is that if you've got the art spotter's gene then all you need to do is memorize the names of the different styles. If I wanted to teach you what Clem Weisbecker or Sam Glankoff or Barbara Hall looked like, yes, I could give you a bunch of scans with their names on them and, if you had the gene, that would be enough. The next time you saw a Glankoff story, you'd know it was him. If you didn't have the gene, you probably wouldn't know. Me, I have half of the gene. I look at a Glankoff story and say, "Yeah, I KNOW that guy. He worked at Parents doing True Comics." Then I go and look through my True Comics index cards that I did with Hames Ware and as soon as I see Glankoff's name, I know who it is. There's the memory component of the connection with Parents that leads me to the answer. Perhaps others can make the direct connection. I seldom can.
I will only say that I prefer to see a full story. Splash pages and covers are often atypical when it comes to style (and are easily copied). I need to see the mundane work, the average efforts, not those meant to impress. That's where the real artist comes out, in my mind. It's the general crowds or the secondary characters for me - the one's that don't have stylesheets that might make it difficult to tell when one artist replaces another. The characters that don't require thought are more indicative of style. Just as the way a panel is laid out and the characters positions in that panel is more indicative to me than the contrivance of a cover.
Showing a bunch of samples of a bunch of artists certainly can help (and definitely can't hurt) those looking to develop the skill of identifying unsigned comic book stories. But I don't see it as how the next generation of spotters is going to emerge. I believe that once someone finds that they have the skill, they'll find someone who knows more than they do and apprentice themselves to him. Before that, they are likely to refer to GCD to see who they think the artist might be, adding that name/style to their repertoire. Again, that is my experience. You either have it or you don't. You can learn more names but the "HOW" is in the genes. I would LOVE to be proved wrong.
"disputed" is a strong word, fan777. Until I have studied the covers noted, I can only say that I question the blanket attribution to Whitman.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
I have put a message out there inviting the experts that populate the Timely-Atlas-Comics Yahoo group run by DocV. A more knowledgeable group would be hard to find.
If Henry or Narf would let the GCD gang know about here it would be appreciated.
-
Take this with an obvious grain of salt, Jim, since I have only the vaguest interest in the art side of things, but it seems to me that a lot of the process of any skill is actually just exercise. It might not be "productive to the cause" to have someone who can spot Gene Colan, but there's no chance (to use myself as a guinea pig) I'm going to look at someone's unknown page and see it without getting used to what to look for with regard to an artist that can be easily verified. Bumbling around on my own, I don't know from line weights or composition. I'm lucky if I can name a dozen colors...
Organization like is being suggested, I think, helps someone interested see past the content of the art and to the artist behind it.
-
Let's continue to hope that you're right and I'm wrong, John.
I would very much prefer it your way. It's just that I've had no experience of that happening.
(|:{>
-
More people should be learning the skill/art since there has never been a time when MORE comic samples have been so easily available. Yet it's hard to name more than a couple of people who have contributed to sorting out Golden Age artist credits - and most of them were doing it long before GAC or DCM came along. What new Art Spotters have developed?
At 28 years old, I feel safe in saying that I AM the next generation of spotter. I think the internet, particularly sites like GAC and DCM are starting to grow new interest in the Golden Age. There is also a Golden Age of reprints emerging that is bringing this material to new light. Just 10-15 years ago who would have thought that there would be reprints of work by Fletcher Hanks, Dick Briefer, Boody Rogers, etc. Yeah, it’s still a niche market, and probably always will be, but I think the niche is growing. As people discover these treasures, I think more are going to want to learn about the men who created them. I know I sure did, and do.
Yes it takes a certain type of person to become a spotter, but it also takes a certain type of person to have the patience and drive to scan 68 pages of 60-70 year old newsprint, and we’ve assembled a community of such folks who have scanned thousands of books! I see no reason why a few new spotters couldn’t emerge. They just need a place to start.
-Eric
-
At 28 years old, I feel safe in saying that I AM the next generation of spotter. I think the internet, particularly sites like GAC and DCM are starting to grow new interest in the Golden Age. There is also a Golden Age of reprints emerging that is bringing this material to new light. Just 10-15 years ago who would have thought that there would be reprints of work by Fletcher Hanks, Dick Briefer, Boody Rogers, etc. Yeah, it’s still a niche market, and probably always will be, but I think the niche is growing. As people discover these treasures, I think more are going to want to learn about the men who created them. I know I sure did, and do.
Yes it takes a certain type of person to become a spotter, but it also takes a certain type of person to have the patience and drive to scan 68 pages of 60-70 year old newsprint, and we’ve assembled a community of such folks who have scanned thousands of books! I see no reason why a few new spotters couldn’t emerge. They just need a place to start.
-Eric
As my maternal grandmother used to say, Eric,
"From your mouth to God's ear."
(|:{>
-
Bravo again to our "young one", scra1941!
:-*
It's the same with me, though I am 20 years older.
I got the hots for art spotting just two years ago.
Then I got into pre-code horror, joined DCM, met Jim V. here, scanned a batch of his books, learned from him to spot some artists -
and currently I am indexing all of ACEs horror books, deleting hundreds and hundreds of question marks.
Makes me feel proud.
We can be pioneers. Thanks to the internet, the knowledge is actually growing.
So everybody grab a scanner and get those pictures up!
And it is more than amazing what GCD and DCM are accomplishing.
A new and truly international movement of art lovers is forming.
-
I'm learning a *little* (and that word can't be emphasized enough) about identifying some GA writers from associating with Martin O'Hearn. Unfortunately, I've got a long ways to go, but I have learned some writers' traits enough to be able to credit them with a "?" in the GCD, and that's a start.
-
Spotting writers always seems so much more daunting to me although I have learned a "little" also from people like Frank Young.
Best
Joe
-
I only got a small fraction of art spotter gene. A few will jump out but not a lot. I think that looking at large samples of a few particular artists at a time may be a way to get good at spotting those artists. Once you get one done really well maybe move on to another. Sometimes the "I have seen that scene before" will hit me. The problem is remembering where it was seen before.
-
I guess I don't understand the benefit of someone studying, say, the work of Gene Colan to learn how to identify it. After all these years, how many undiscovered Gene Colan stories are there? So, yes, you could assemble scads of Colan samples and hope that someone would study them and learn what makes a Colan story. And then what?
As I see it, an "Artist Identification File" would be a teaching tool, showing the techniques and general approach a certain artist took while generating images/pages. Someone who wants to learn how to "art spot" needs a starting point, something that's already been identified that they can look at and, with a little effort, understand what other people are looking at when trying to determine who drew an uncredited story.
It's not about identifying "undiscovered stories" from any specific artist, it is about teaching people the ways they can go about identifying an uncredited story. An "Artist Identification File" could also be used to show how any given artist developed over time. The artwork of John Giunta in 1941 looks different than his work in 1944-45, which is different than the work he did in 1950. Even in Fletcher Hanks' brief career, his style changed from his first story to his last.
I will only say that I prefer to see a full story. Splash pages and covers are often atypical when it comes to style (and are easily copied). I need to see the mundane work, the average efforts, not those meant to impress. That's where the real artist comes out, in my mind. It's the general crowds or the secondary characters for me - the one's that don't have stylesheets that might make it difficult to tell when one artist replaces another. The characters that don't require thought are more indicative of style. Just as the way a panel is laid out and the characters positions in that panel is more indicative to me than the contrivance of a cover.
That's why I said that an "Artist Identification File" should include examples of "Splash pages, covers, page layouts, figure drawing, backgrounds and inking." I don't feel anyone needs an entire story to see how an artist lays-out their pages, and there's more than a few covers that are unsigned and may need identification. When I put "backgrounds" into my statement, I was specifically thinking of Fletcher Hanks. Every person "out there on the internet" who has blasted the guy, calling his work "so bad it's good" has only shown me that they focus solely on the figure drawing he did for his lead characters, and totally ignored the (in my opinion) wonderful backgrounds he would draw (mostly in his early work).
My experience, and I can only speak for myself, is that if you've got the art spotter's gene then all you need to do is memorize the names of the different styles. If I wanted to teach you what Clem Weisbecker or Sam Glankoff or Barbara Hall looked like, yes, I could give you a bunch of scans with their names on them and, if you had the gene, that would be enough. The next time you saw a Glankoff story, you'd know it was him. If you didn't have the gene, you probably wouldn't know. Me, I have half of the gene. I look at a Glankoff story and say, "Yeah, I KNOW that guy. He worked at Parents doing True Comics." Then I go and look through my True Comics index cards that I did with Hames Ware and as soon as I see Glankoff's name, I know who it is. There's the memory component of the connection with Parents that leads me to the answer. Perhaps others can make the direct connection. I seldom can.
Showing a bunch of samples of a bunch of artists certainly can help (and definitely can't hurt) those looking to develop the skill of identifying unsigned comic book stories. But I don't see it as how the next generation of spotters is going to emerge. I believe that once someone finds that they have the skill, they'll find someone who knows more than they do and apprentice themselves to him. Before that, they are likely to refer to GCD to see who they think the artist might be, adding that name/style to their repertoire. Again, that is my experience. You either have it or you don't. You can learn more names but the "HOW" is in the genes. I would LOVE to be proved wrong.
I don't agree that "art spotting" is a special skill that only a select few have. Anyone can learn how to do it as long as they have the patience & motivation to learn how. Having something along the lines of an "Artist Identification File" (or a blog or other site that teaches how to do this) can only make it easier for them to learn how to go about it and what to look for.
I agree that quite a bit of memory is involved, but if someone has the desire to learn and is properly motivated, then they can learn how to identify (or least voice their opinion on) an uncredited story. If a person can tell the difference between a circle and a square, then they can learn, over time, how to tell the difference between one artist and another.
-
I'm learning a *little* (and that word can't be emphasized enough) about identifying some GA writers from associating with Martin O'Hearn. Unfortunately, I've got a long ways to go, but I have learned some writers' traits enough to be able to credit them with a "?" in the GCD, and that's a start.
I am completely in AWE of anyone who can figure out who WROTE these things. Keep it up, DM.
(|:{>
-
I agree that quite a bit of memory is involved, but if someone has the desire to learn and is properly motivated, then they can learn how to identify (or least voice their opinion on) an uncredited story. If a person can tell the difference between a circle and a square, then they can learn, over time, how to tell the difference between one artist and another.
I would LOVE for you to be right, bchat. I rarely see any evidence of it. When I met Tilliban, he was already extrapolating the few Ace artists I'd identified for him into naming or trying to name the artists on other books. After a few hours it became evident that he didn't need me for anything except putting a name to a style. So there's the exception that proves the rule. Keep it up, Tillman!
I've been doing that for decades for all kinds of people in all kinds of venues, but I've yet to have someone tell me that my IDing, say, Warren Kremer on an Ace book has led to a mass of entries on GCD for other Kremer work in other issues or titles. It SHOULD! Studying a story by Kremer SHOULD lead to understanding his style (at least at that time) and to more attributions - IF you're right.
Go for the art files. I'd call them Art Sample Files, rather than Identification files, but that's a minor quibble of a preference. My goal would be to have people learn more and to add more positive IDs to the GCD. I truly hope that happens.
A question for anyone here who has info on what is going on behind the scenes at GCD: How many people are updating the artist IDs on pre-1960 comics? That would at least give us a base point from which we can gauge the impact of our experiment.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Congrats to Tilliaban on being such a quick study!
Yes, I hope someone on the GCD staff lets them know we would welcome any artspotters to join us here.
-
He wasn't exactly a "quick study", Yoc,
he had the gene and just needed to focus it and learn some names.
(|:{>
-
Ok. I'm still just as happy for him Jim.
If I have any of the gene it's as recessive as my hair line.
:)
-
I agree that quite a bit of memory is involved, but if someone has the desire to learn and is properly motivated, then they can learn how to identify (or least voice their opinion on) an uncredited story. If a person can tell the difference between a circle and a square, then they can learn, over time, how to tell the difference between one artist and another.
I would LOVE for you to be right, bchat. I rarely see any evidence of it. When I met Tilliaban, he was already extrapolating the few Ace artists I'd identified for him into naming or trying to name the artists on other books. After a few hours it became evident that he didn't need me for anything except putting a name to a style. So there's the exception that proves the rule. Keep it up, Tillman!
I've been doing that for decades for all kinds of people in all kinds of venues, but I've yet to have someone tell me that my IDing, say, Warren Kremer on an Ace book has led to a mass of entries on GCD for other Kremer work in other issues or titles. It SHOULD! Studying a story by Kremer SHOULD lead to understanding his style (at least at that time) and to more attributions - IF you're right.
Tilliban is a perfect example of what I'm saying: Any person who is motivated enough & has the patience to learn "the basics" can do this, or (again) at least reach a point where they're willing to voice their opinion on uncredited artwork.
If people aren't interested in identifying something that, for example, an artist like Warren Kremer may have drawn, no amount of credits on GCD is going to change that. Additionally, not everybody thinks or learns in the same way, so one person's way of teaching may be the perfect way for one person to learn from and yet, at the same time, be a nightmare to understand for someone else. Sure, someone may take to it rather quickly, but that's probably due to how that individual thinks rather than an indication of what people are able to learn.
What I'm trying to say (I think ... I've been fighting a headache all day) is that it's not that people can't learn this or that only certain people are capable of learning "art spotting", it may simply be that some people that want to learn don't know how to start. An "Artist Identification Lesson File" (adding the "Lesson" to be more clear what the file would be used for) makes an easy & quick starting point on the road to education, and at the same time, someone can figure-out if this is even something they want to do. From there, a person can contact others, check-out websites like GCD, a blog devoted to individual artists and so on.
-
Sorry about the headache, bc,
I know what that's like. Don't envy you a bit.
And I still hope that you're right. Outside of Tilliban, in 40 years I've not seen anyone pick up art styles and use them to ID other work. John Benson does it a little, but mostly on small sub-set of artists. I've NEVER been able to "train" anyone. And wouldn't try. I personally think it's pointless, but that's just my opinion. Your opinion is that people can learn. We'll have to agree to disagree.
As I said, you have high hopes and want you to be right. I'll be patient and wait and see what happens. Let's start by asking the group how many of you WANT to learn to be Art Spotters?
Simple question and a base point for figuring out what works and what doesn't.
(|:{>
-
I see both sides. I don't know why certain artists jump out at me that have not been frequently identified and others look more generic to me. Why when I saw a Boris Karloff and knew that I had seen that style on Prof. Harbinger and I was right it was Mel Crawford. I think it is a mixture of both talent and exposure. With enough exposure more talent may show be developed. I will be starting an artists files on GAC to aid with art id.
-
Wha…?!
I’m the exception now? Thought I was the rule.
Thanks for the flowers, Jim.
I’m just stubborn enough to want to know and give credit to artists.
I am highly motivated to do so because I strive to be a pre-code horror expert.
It’s just about pushing the right buttons, see?
Or to be a nerd fascinated by graphic art.
Aren’t we all?
And, yeah, I wanna be an art spotter!
Do I get to ride shotgun - with Jim at the wheel?
;D
-
You are the exception and the rule, Tillman,
You have the ability to discern what constitutes the "styles" of a lot of different artists. That's rare.
As narfstar says, he has a few people who jump out at him and he can always recognize. I think that's true of most fans. They guys they like, certain very stylized artists - they can recognize them. Fletcher Hanks is a good example. Lots of people recognize Fletcher Hanks. But how many recognize Frank Thomas - just as stylized and in some of the same books? How about Lew Glanzman?
I agree with bchat that probably most people will be able to learn to recognize their favorite artist if they work at it. But take a look at the All For Love V2:3 scan and see if you can see the Sub-Mariner artist Carl Pfeufer in there? And Joe Simon, Mr. Capt. America, is penciling one of those stories. Learning one artist at one point in his career will probably not be enough.
You, on the other hand, seem to pick up the core of what makes a Jim McLaughlin, as we discovered in Paris, and were able to walk with me back to his earliest, very atypical. work. And you could SEE it. I could tell from your eyes that you really GOT IT. That was pure joy on my part, because, since that day in 1968 when I showed my friend Pat Price a copy of All-Star Western #99 with a Frank Frazetta story in it, asked him excitedly "Do you KNOW who this is?" and was told "Wally Wood?", I haven't had too many people give me the right answers.
ps. I haven't put the Ace books in the mail. I'll go pack them right now and maybe I'll catch the postman.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Wow, it must have been a thrill for both of you guys. Wish I was there to see it!
-
I can't speak for Tillman, but I certainly enjoyed myself. Meeting him was a grand birthday present.
ps. Tillman, I did not catch the mailman, but I've got the list of books and will pull and pack them ASAP. Out Monday, I promise this time.
(|:{>
-
As narfstar says, he has a few people who jump out at him and he can always recognize. I think that's true of most fans. They guys they like, certain very stylized artists - they can recognize them. Fletcher Hanks is a good example. Lots of people recognize Fletcher Hanks. But how many recognize Frank Thomas - just as stylized and in some of the same books? How about Lew Glanzman?
(Raises hand for both Frank Thomas and Lew Glanzman)
I know I have a different method for spotting than you do Jim. I see a familiar style from an artist that I'm not well versed in, and I first connect it to what story(ies) I've seen it in rather than a name. I'm not always good with names offhand, but I'm good with my visual memory. I’ll see a familiar treatment of a face, character pose, panel composition, or some other such trait, and it will click with me that I’ve seen it before. Artists with more distinct styles (like Frank Thomas) I'm more likely to be able to put a name to offhand, but often I connect to a story that I've previously IDed, I check my notes, and I assign credit from there.
-Eric
-
I'm half your way and half "my" way, Eric,
My example of remembering Sam Glankoff working at Parents is exactly how you do it. When I looked at the All for Love, however, I knew all the artists from memory. Weird, but to each his own. Good on you for Glanzman and Thomas. I hope you'll continue to share what you know and teach me some new guys. That's the Christmas present I keep looking for.
(|:{>
-
Hey Jim how about art spotting in All For Love v3#3? I am especially interested in the cover artist on this. There is "something" about the cover that I find has impact.
-
Not an easy one, narf.
All of these are so cavalierly done - very quick, minimal pencils. For What It's Worth...
Cover: It looks most like Joe Simon pencils to me, but it might be Carl Pfeufer with Simon inks. I really don't know.
Cinderella is Jilted - I'm thinking Giordano is pencilling this, but I'm going by some faint hints of poses as the inker is so bad. I first I thought it might be Colletta, but it's not. Perhaps a hasty Pfeufer ink job? Again, in the end, I just don't know.
Take Me Back - If you made me take a stab I'd say John Prentice pencils and Joe Simon inks. The pay for these stories was historically LOW. After the Atlas implosion, ANY work was better than none and a lot of good artists hacked stuff out as fast as they could, just to make the rent. Simon was the editor here so his hand is everywhere. Prentice was an old friend and would get a preferential place in line. If it's not JP, it's someone swiping him.
Never Leave Me - Ted Galindo (best guess) and Simon inks again.
Lonely Goddess - Mr. Bob Powell pencils and inks.
Mad About Mitch - Carl Pfeufer and Simon (best guess) inks
A perfect example of why the date of the comic is EVERYTHING in art spotting.
-
Thanks Jim. I guess you do not find the cover as good as I do. There is just something about it. I am not good at any of those artists. I can sometimes spot Giordano war by planes and subs. One BIG problem I have is I will start seeing some of a particular artists in too many things. Maybe because of my limited clues. For instance, noses tend to allow me to recognize Bill Molno. I start seeing hints of his style too much. Fightin' Airforce 39
http://goldenagecomics.co.uk/admin.php?sid=6568ffe924838141ec2cb05031c21001
has two signed Nicolas and Alascia stories. I see some Molno in the other three stories. The pencil/ink thing really complicates matters.
-
I don't have access to that link, narf,
and that issue of Fightin' Air Force isn't posted for downloading. When you get past 1960, my interest in the artists wanes considerably. The Atlas Implosion did away with the "middle class" in comic book art and I'm generally focused on the pre-Implosion guys. When Dick Giordano starts looking like the work in the All For Love that I thought might be his, it's time for me to forget about it.
The only way I can even see him is in the staging. The guy looking into the panel on page 2 panel 1 and a similar pose on page 4 panel 3 and the man in the suit's posture in page 4 panel 2. There's not much that the inker (might be Eugene Hughes?) has left for us to find. Spotting an artist by planes and subs leaves a lot of uncovered territory. It will only work in a very limited number of instances and genres.
You are SO right that "the pencil/ink thing really complicates matters."
Sorry I was so little help on the cover. Not being able to identify it makes no judgement on the quality - just on my knowledge.
(|:{>
-
Sorry about the headache, bc,
I know what that's like. Don't envy you a bit.
Thanks. I've had migraine headaches before, so I know how bad the pain could have gotten. This headache just lasted a lot longer than I'm used to (Thursday night into Friday evening). I'm not a pill-popper, so I probably let this one go a little too long before taking something.
Lots of people recognize Fletcher Hanks. But how many recognize Frank Thomas - just as stylized and in some of the same books? How about Lew Glanzman?
I agree with bchat that probably most people will be able to learn to recognize their favorite artist if they work at it.
I think everyone can recognize their favorite artist(s), or at least see a similar style and go "I wonder if that's drawn by so-and-so?" For me, it was George Perez who was the first artist whose work I could recognize without seeing his signature. From there, I'd see artists with similar styles and began to realize the differences between Perez's work and their's. Getting to the point where you & others are at, where someone could see a piece of art that's uncredited and begin making educated guesses or accurately identify the artist is the next step, and like I said, the person has to have to motivation to get there.
For me, I don't have the motivation to get to a point where I can see something at random and figure-out who drew it. By choice, it's unlikely I'll ever consider myself an "art spotter". Drawing is a hobby of mine, and occasionally I enjoy mimicing the styles of different artists. Therefore, my motivation in regards to studying artwork isn't to be able to figure-out who drew an uncredited story, it's to be able to copy a style of art. The possibility that I can identify uncredited artwork is directly tied to which artists I've studied, which by choice is extremely limited, since I have another hobby to which I dedicate more of my free time. Still, as a result of the time I have spent looking at artwork, occassionally, I'll be flipping through a file I've downloaded from DCM and, before looking at the credits (if there are any), I'll go "Oh look, it's so-and-so."
-
I should have known you have to go to the download page before the download
http://goldenagecomics.co.uk/?dlid=22019 should get you to FAF 39 Jim. I was wondering if you so Molno in the non N/A stories like I do. The times when I have gotten Molno right it is always the faces and especially the nose. BTW Jim there is a new comic coming out from Image called Peter Panzerfaust the promo says "The city of Calais is the first city in France to fall to the Germans in the spring of 1940. A mysterious American Boy ralies a handful of plucky French orphans and they work together to survive Europe's darkest hour." Given your interest in France, this may be a new book you might want to give a shot.
-
Peter Panzerfaust sounds ghastly to me, narf. Peter Pan leading the Lost Boys against Nazis...? Hmm, maybe not. And I meandered away from comics partially due to that quasi-Manga art style. I'm fascinated by the real-world France, not so much by the make-believe way-far-out fantasy comic world.
Fightin' Air Forces #29 certainly highlights the limitations of my art spotting abilities. I know that there's some Molno there, but all the stories are what I call "after my time". I would hesitate to make a pronouncement on any of them. Sorry. I'm useless on these.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Thanks for looking anyway Jim. I need to get Ramon over at GCD to look he is a big Charlton fan
-
Not an easy one, narf.
All of these are so cavalierly done - very quick, minimal pencils. For What It's Worth...
Cover: It looks most like Joe Simon pencils to me, but it might be Carl Pfeufer with Simon inks. I really don't know.
Cinderella is Jilted - I'm thinking Giordano is pencilling this, but I'm going by some faint hints of poses as the inker is so bad. I first I thought it might be Colletta, but it's not. Perhaps a hasty Pfeufer ink job? Again, in the end, I just don't know.
Take Me Back - If you made me take a stab I'd say John Prentice pencils and Joe Simon inks. The pay for these stories was historically LOW. After the Atlas implosion, ANY work was better than none and a lot of good artists hacked stuff out as fast as they could, just to make the rent. Simon was the editor here so his hand is everywhere. Prentice was an old friend and would get a preferential place in line. If it's not JP, it's someone swiping him.
Never Leave Me - Ted Galindo (best guess) and Simon inks again.
Lonely Goddess - Mr. Bob Powell pencils and inks.
Mad About Mitch - Carl Pfeufer and Simon (best guess) inks
A perfect example of why the date of the comic is EVERYTHING in art spotting.
Jim,
I got that Giordano vibe on "Cinderella is Jilted " too. It reminded me immediately of some Atlas romance stories that I had seen that he had done with Vinnie Colletta. I don't have a clue as to the inker here though.
On "Take Me Back" I'm guessing that it's not actually John Prentice as he was already three years into doing the Rip Kirby strip. Given the fact that he occasionally need assistants on that strip I tend to doubt that he'd go looking for low paying comic book work to increase his workload. For those reasons I'm gonna go with your second guess that it's someone aping Prentice.
"Lonely Goddess"- Not as detailed as Powell's earlier work but not quite as minimalist as his romance work was shortly to become. He seems to be eliminating more and more backgrounds and details and doing less and less actual penciling (with an increasing amount of the "drawing" actually being done in the inking) as he worked to increase his output to compensate for the lower pay rates. I'd really like to get together a bunch of his stuff from this period to watch the transition.
My Two Cents
Joe
-
Never underestimate the power of a buck, Joe,
and don't overestimate the remunerations from a newspaper strip. I am about 50/50 on the Prentice ID. If it's Prentice, it's terrible Prentice, but it's also possible that he could whip this out in a day and earn himself $100 without raising a sweat. Comic book stories can be so much easier that comic strips (no syndicate review, etc.). I remain open to the possibility.
The big lesson on this book is Joe Simon, if anyone even cares about him at this era...
(|:{>
-
Re: All For Love V3#3. I had quick look and my vote goes to a complete swipefest.
I hope to be hear more often and contribute, as I have to Atlas Tales and now the GCD.
-
Always welcome in each place Ger
-
Thanks for Baffling #25! I will enter it into the CGD, where it is the only one missing. And surprise, surprise... isn't that last story by Gene Colan? I am pretty sure, although the style does suggest it may have been drawn about two to three years earlier. There even is a bit of swirling smoke with a hole in it...! All it lacks is a close shot of a door handle!
-
Thanks for Baffling #25! I will enter it into the CGD, where it is the only one missing. And surprise, surprise... isn't that last story by Gene Colan?
I think Tillmann brought that out pretty clearly, Ger, so it's hardly a "surprise" and pretty definite. T = "Mopping up with a harmless Colan-story."
I am pretty sure, although the style does suggest it may have been drawn about two to three years earlier.
He's got that covered, too. T = "All reprints from earlier ACE horror books."
There even is a bit of swirling smoke with a hole in it...! All it lacks is a close shot of a door handle!
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
I am not yet up with what part of the forum to follow, but I am glad I wasn't the only one to see it.
-
One easy way, Ger, is to set your DCM "home" page to the "View the most recent posts on the forum". You can easily ignore those threads that don't interest you, but you generally keep track of relevant posts.
And I don't think we've ever been formally introduced, so, Hello.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
All credit to identifying Colan belongs to Jim.
I'm just the typist around here.
Great to see the mysterious Mr. Apeldoorn here.
He's probably Europe's best art spotter and does incredible things on his blog:
http://allthingsger.blogspot.com/
-
Yes in deed, welcome Ger!
Would you care to chime in on the 'Who is this Mystery Artist #1' and 'Who is this Mystery Artist #2' topics?
-
I am completely in the dark of most forties artists, but I'll have a loo. My blog isn't called the fabulous fifties for nothing. And it's great to meet you all too. Jim, I know from his scans and art identification cards, of course.
-
I am trying to create a timeline of the word of Mort Meskin and Jerry Robinson in the period they worked together. No one has done this systemeticly yet. First thing I ran into was Justice Traps the Guilty (1947 series) #v1#4 [4] - Guilty Boys, which at the GCD has no credits, but looks like it's pure Meskin to me. Steven Brower has it as Meskin/Robinson in his Meskin checklist, but I don't see Jerry here. In fact, if you compare it to the story they did in JTTG #5, you can clearly see, what it is he brought to the collaboration.
-
My take, Ger,
is that they learned their weaknesses and strengths in that first JTtG #4 job, and quickly and permanently shifted roles for the one in JTtG #5. I think #4 is Meskin pencils and Robinson inks, and almost every other team-up is Robinson pencils and Meskin inks.
my 2¢
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Nice take... I'll look for that. That would mean this might be their first collaboration of that period?
-
It might be, Ger,
I was relying on YOUR comment that this was the earliest thing on Steven Bower's checklist in my speculation. I really have not studied their team-ups all that much. I LOVE them, and collect them, but I've not tried to sequence them.
Go for it!
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
My take, Ger,
is that they learned their weaknesses and strengths in that first JTtG #4 job, and quickly and permanently shifted roles for the one in JTtG #5. I think #4 is Meskin pencils and Robinson inks, and almost every other team-up is Robinson pencils and Meskin inks.
my 2¢
Peace, Jim (|:{>
And the Headline estory before that?
-
No, actually, there are 'collaborations' in Headline #29 and on ein Young Romance with an earlier publication date. As well as Billy The Kid #v1#2, which the GCD has as solo Meskin, but which has a lot of Robinsonisms, startin from the splash page. So first thing I have to do, is ut them all in libe...
-
No, actually, there are 'collaborations' in Headline #29 and on ein Young Romance with an earlier publication date. As well as Billy The Kid #v1#2, which the GCD has as solo Meskin, but which has a lot of Robinsonisms, startin from the splash page. So first thing I have to do, is ut them all in libe...
I am anxious to participate in the discussion, Ger, but I require (sorry) issue numbers, publishers and dates to do so. Which Billy the Kid #2? Not all of us share all of your familiarity? Please make it easier for us to join in the conversation.
Thanks and Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
The Billy the Kid is on show at my blog (www.allthingsger.blogspot.com) where I will eventually have all relevant materials available. I am sort of jumping the gun here. I am very busy with my television work at the moment and it will take me a while to do this properly.
-
I hate to tell you this, Ger, but I don't want to wade through your blog. I generally HATE blogs. Can you just give me a publisher, title, issue # and let me go from there. I have all those comics, too, and it's so much easier to just grab an original comic and take a look for myself.
Thanks. (|:{>
-
I took a look and I think Ger is talking about this one Jim -
'Billy The Kid'
15 pages Western Fighters (1948 series) #v1#2
(June-July 1948)
-
Yep... I will do a list with my opinions as soon as I am ready. As I said, I may have jumped the gun here. I am still getting everythng ready for a discussion. I am just now scanning the Mesking story from Headline #29. But if you want to have a look, Jim... there is an interesting mix of things happening with Meskin and Robinson in early 1948.
First Meskin drops out of The Vigilante and his place is taken by George Roussos. This may have been do to the new stories for Western, although they do no appear until later that year. Then Meskin reappears in Action with Vigilante. We have the Billy the Kid story. Meskin and Robinson start working for Headline, Young Romance and JTTG. Some of these stories are credited to Meskin solo, but I just don't know. The first Headline story (probably the first Prize story anyway) looks the same as the first JTTG story. I am intrigued b your notion that Meskin and Robinson may have started their collaboration the other way around. The Young Romance story has more Robinson in it. On the whole you can see that all of these stories are better drawn and more detailed than anything Meskin had been doing up to the point he temporarily left Vigilante. I am trying to get all these stories up on my blog to try and do a comparison...
-
First off, Ger, I confess to a complete ignorance when it comes to the DC appearances you quote. I take your word implicitly regarding those. However, when it comes to the Hillman Billy the Kid story, I looked at it again and then went and checked my index card done 20 years ago: same results. I see no Robinson here. My card says Meskin (w/Roussos? or Starr?) and that's still what I see. Starr is most likely pencilling this with Meskin doing the inks. Possible some Roussos inks as well.
As for the Prize work, give me the titles/issues/stories and I'll see what I can see. And remember, I haven't SEEN the DC material you refer to. I could never afford the books and was much more intrigued by the "lesser" publishers of the day.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Yep... I will do a list with my opinions as soon as I am ready. As I said, I may have jumped the gun here. I am still getting everythng ready for a discussion. I am just now scanning the Mesking story from Headline #29. But if you want to have a look, Jim... there is an interesting mix of things happening with Meskin and Robinson in early 1948.
Take a look at Postage Stamp Killer (or something like that) in Headline #28, Ger. I think that is the perfect example of them getting it backwards the first time.
(|:{>
-
I can provide an image of what Barbara Hall looked like. She was my mother and a very very beautiful woman, "more beautiful than any motion-picture actress in Hollywood," as my besotted (and Bohemian) father said of her. Let me know if this is of interest to anyone.
-
I am sure that Roy Thomas would love to have pictures for Alter Ego. Roy & Dann Thomas <roydann@ntinet.com>
Also if you have any information about your mother's work that you can correct or add to the GCD it would be great to have her get all the credit she deserves. www.comics.org
-
You can add a picture here as well when posting a reply.
Click 'reply' and at the bottom left 'Addition Options' then Attach - Browse to the picture - type your message and hit post.
-Yoc