Most distinctive GA artists? 2 2

[Electricmastro]

On 1/15/2020 at 10:28 AM, path4play said:

What about one of my favorites Irv Novick?

Great artist who worked on Archie's Black Hood Comics (1944-1946).

Edited January 17, 2020 by Electricmastro

[Electricmastro]

Rudy Palais liked to draw his visuals as if they were melting, at least with his horror art anyway, and had a distinct way of drawing wrinkly heads:

May 1952 issue of Chamber of Chills #8:

Sept 1952 issue of Chamber of Chills #12:

May 1953 issue of Horrific #5:

July 1954 issue of Horrific #12:

[Frisco Larson]

For me, most of the time when I see this guy, I know it's this guy. 

[Electricmastro]

30 minutes ago, Frisco Larson said:

For me, most of the time when I see this guy, I know it's this guy. 

I can definitely sense some distinct pattern with Everett’s art, at least in regards to drawing protagonists with muscular builds, pronounced chins, triangular heads, somewhat slanted eyes, and V-shaped fair hair.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Electricmastro

[Frisco Larson]

Yes to all of the above .… and eyebrows too for some reason. Splash pages from: Heroic 4 & 5 and Marvel Mystery 22 & 25.

[Electricmastro]

Harry Peter, who tended to draw men with dimples and pronounced chins, while the women had plain and smooth faces.

[Electricmastro]

George Roussos (Green Lama #8, March 1946):

[Electricmastro]

Harry Anderson (Picture News #10, January 1947):

[Electricmastro]

On 2/17/2018 at 2:55 PM, Pat Calhoun said:

He also know how to make scenery catch someone’s interest as well (Amazing Mystery Funnies #v2#12, December 1939):

[sfcityduck]

Distinctive?  The only artists that I can think of that weren't successfully imitated by others in the GA or part of a "school" or "shop" of similar artists are:

1. Wolverton (immensely talented, but had a style entirely of his own)

2. Krigstein (redesigned the comic book page and created a new style of telling stories that would not be emulated until the 60s and 70s)

3. Hanks (folk art that could have only existed at the dawn of the GA and wasn't worthy of imitation)

4. LB Cole (mostly for his cover color choices and strong graphic "poster" presentation)

I am sure there are a few others, but most of the really great comic artists inspired imitators.  Giunta/Frazetta/Williams etc. often cannot be told apart.  Simon & Kirby emulated others and were emulated, including by their own shop colleagues. Barks' stories and storytelling really made him stand out, but his art can be mistaken for Kelly and others (a lot of classic Barks stories have classic covers by others).   Fine stood out early, but his style, which to me is Raymondesque, was emulated by many.  Schomburg was successfully imitated by some of his Timely colleagues, but not often because it probably took way too much effort, so maybe he deserves to be on my list.  My point being, if the test is "distinctive" you have to look beyond the covers or interiors of the artists you like, and instead look at his associates and imitators to ascertain if the art really is distinctive.  "Great" and "distinctive" are not the same thing.

Edited September 4, 2020 by sfcityduck

[rjpb]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Distinctive?  The only artists that I can think of that weren't successfully imitated by others in the GA or part of a "school" or "shop" of similar artists are:

1. Wolverton (immensely talented, but had a style entirely of his own)

2. Krigstein (redesigned the comic book page and created a new style of telling stories that would not be emulated until the 60s and 70s)

3. Hanks (folk art that could have only existed at the dawn of the GA and wasn't worthy of imitation)

4. LB Cole (mostly for his cover color choices and strong graphic "poster" presentation)

I am sure there are a few others, but most of the really great comic artists inspired imitators.  Giunta/Frazetta/Williams etc. often cannot be told apart.  Simon & Kirby emulated others and were emulated, including by their own shop colleagues. Barks' stories and storytelling really made him stand out, but his art can be mistaken for Kelly and others (a lot of classic Barks stories have classic covers by others).   Fine stood out early, but his style, which to me is Raymondesque, was emulated by many.  Schomburg was successfully imitated by some of his Timely colleagues, but not often because it probably took way too much effort, so maybe he deserves to be on my list.  My point being, if the test is "distinctive" you have to look beyond the covers or interiors of the artists you like, and instead look at his associates and imitators to ascertain if the art really is distinctive.  

Excellent post. Many of the greats are only "distinctive" to the aficionado, in no small part because they were so influential, that their style was frequently imitated or at least incorporated. Of all the names listed, Wolverton stands out the most. A style immediately recognizable once you've seen just one other piece of his work, and which was never really imitated at the time. As refined as Krigstein's style was, he had contemporaries that would at times do work heavily influenced by him, Gene Colan, Ross Andru and Paul Reinman come to mind.  

[Electricmastro]

While I’m sure he wasn’t the only GA artist to attempt to draw considerably surreal art, Louis Ferstadt could draw such art as if the point of an entire comic was just to showcase one specific panel even he probably realized was very interesting. I’m sure even his presumed inspiration, Salvador Dali, is still distinct from him.

From Four Favorites #12 (November, 1943):

Edited September 5, 2020 by Electricmastro

[Cat-Man_America]

Reed Crandall is high on my list of GA artists with a distinctive style...

His skill rendering physical anatomy in complex scenes of dynamic tension were second to none.

[Electricmastro]

Chad Grothkopf (Funny Book #1, December 1942):

[Electricmastro]

Gerald McCann (Dead-Eye Western Comics #12, October 1950):