• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The Canon
0

60 posts in this topic

The Mt Rushmore thread made me think about curators' attempts to establish a canon for American comic artists.  Probably the most known taxonomy happened courtesy of John Carlin, Art Spiegelman and Brian Walker in 2004/05 when they launched the Masters of American Comics museum show.  I looked into the achives here and see it's been mentioned a few times but it hasn't really been delved into.  it toured the States in 2005-2007 -- https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2005/masters-of-american-comics/ -- and the accompanying catalogue from Yale University Press https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300113174/masters-american-comics is killer.  (Yes, I have an essay in there; no, that's not why it's killer.)  Their idea was to pick 15 auteurs whose work you had to reckon with if you wanted to undestand the history and aesthetics of American comic artwork. 

Did they succeed?  Probably about as well as these types of attempts can.  It's flawed.  But here's their list: 

1. Winsor McCay

2. Lyonel Feininger

3. George Herriman

4. E.C. Segar

5. Frank King

6. Chester Gould

7. Milt Caniff

8. Charles Schulz

9. Will Eisner

10. Jack Kirby

11. Harvey Kurtzman

12. R. Crumb

13. Art Spiegelman

14. Gary Panter

15. Chris Ware

What were people's immediate, knee-jerk "hey what!" moments?  Feininger for one.  He was a cartoonist for about 15 seconds.  But his later career in fine art made a strong argument to the curators for his contributions to the medium.  Also: Gould?  Really? And yet no Barks? No Raymond or Foster?  Also...well, also a lot of things.  Where are the women, for one?  The argument was roughly that yes women were contributers to comics history, but no there weren't any who lived up to the requirements of inclusion.  (I argued for Lynda Barry at the time, and I think by now her influences have panned out in the current generation of autobiographical comics folks, but hey that's just my opinion, man.) 

Also it's interesting that the first half of the list is all strip and the second half all comic book.  I can see the reason for that.  You'll note there's just one superhero artist.  And Kirby wasn't even a lock.  I think the curators saw the superhero genre as a thin slice of the pie. 

When the art was on the walls of the Hammer Museum and MOCA, it was incredibly impressive. Moving. I hadn't understood why Frank King was included until seeing the art in person.  Also, it made me think about the definition of a canon not being "stuff I like" but people whose contributions to the form were crucial to its development.

But I dunno, what do you think?  Is this an acceptable canon still? 

G

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the show, and thought it was definitely a good start. I also was a bit annoyed there were no women. I also think it wasnt expansive enough, they should have included more artists, maybe double. but hey, I think as these types of shows progress we will see them morph into something better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glendgold said:

The Mt Rushmore thread made me think about curators' attempts to establish a canon for American comic artists.  Probably the most known taxonomy happened courtesy of John Carlin, Art Spiegelman and Brian Walker in 2004/05 when they launched the Masters of American Comics museum show.  I looked into the achives here and see it's been mentioned a few times but it hasn't really been delved into.  it toured the States in 2005-2007 -- https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2005/masters-of-american-comics/ -- and the accompanying catalogue from Yale University Press https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300113174/masters-american-comics is killer.  (Yes, I have an essay in there; no, that's not why it's killer.)  Their idea was to pick 15 auteurs whose work you had to reckon with if you wanted to undestand the history and aesthetics of American comic artwork. 

Did they succeed?  Probably about as well as these types of attempts can.  It's flawed.  But here's their list: 

1. Winsor McCay

2. Lyonel Feininger

3. George Herriman

4. E.C. Segar

5. Frank King

6. Chester Gould

7. Milt Caniff

8. Charles Schulz

9. Will Eisner

10. Jack Kirby

11. Harvey Kurtzman

12. R. Crumb

13. Art Spiegelman

14. Gary Panter

15. Chris Ware

What were people's immediate, knee-jerk "hey what!" moments?  Feininger for one.  He was a cartoonist for about 15 seconds.  But his later career in fine art made a strong argument to the curators for his contributions to the medium.  Also: Gould?  Really? And yet no Barks? No Raymond or Foster?  Also...well, also a lot of things.  Where are the women, for one?  The argument was roughly that yes women were contributers to comics history, but no there weren't any who lived up to the requirements of inclusion.  (I argued for Lynda Barry at the time, and I think by now her influences have panned out in the current generation of autobiographical comics folks, but hey that's just my opinion, man.) 

Also it's interesting that the first half of the list is all strip and the second half all comic book.  I can see the reason for that.  You'll note there's just one superhero artist.  And Kirby wasn't even a lock.  I think the curators saw the superhero genre as a thin slice of the pie. 

When the art was on the walls of the Hammer Museum and MOCA, it was incredibly impressive. Moving. I hadn't understood why Frank King was included until seeing the art in person.  Also, it made me think about the definition of a canon not being "stuff I like" but people whose contributions to the form were crucial to its development.

But I dunno, what do you think?  Is this an acceptable canon still? 

G

 

 

 

 

I think Ditko has to be on the list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure a list with comic strip guys (short form) and comic book guys (long form) is apples and oranges to start.

Still, it's not a bad list. I wonder if anyone has built a "coaching tree" for these guys to see how many others picked up their style. That would be interesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list needs context.  Any write-up, explaining how they came up with their top 15 would be helpful.  I'm sure some younger collectors are not familiar with all the the names on the list.

I certainly am not familiar with Feininger or King. 

 

Edited by NelsonAI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, NelsonAI said:

The list needs context.  Any write-up, explaining how they came up with their top 15 would be helpful.  I'm sure some younger collectors are not familiar with all the the names on the list.

I certainly am not familiar with Feininger or King. 

 

This interview with Walker might be helpful: https://www.aiga.org/masters-of-american-comics 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, suspense39 said:

I enjoyed the show, and thought it was definitely a good start. I also was a bit annoyed there were no women. I also think it wasnt expansive enough, they should have included more artists, maybe double. but hey, I think as these types of shows progress we will see them morph into something better.

Curiously, everyone forgets Dale Messick, one of the earliest female artists to have a strong strip, namely Brenda Starr. It used to be a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, alxjhnsn said:

I'm pretty sure a list with comic strip guys (short form) and comic book guys (long form) is apples and oranges to start.

Still, it's not a bad list. I wonder if anyone has built a "coaching tree" for these guys to see how many others picked up their style. That would be interesting.

 

Absolutely. And where are more modern artists like Adams, Miller or "Synkavich" (phoenetic) and other classic book artists like Lou Fine and Mac Raboy (split work, strips and books)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with things like this is that you can't please everyone.  Some glaring omissions for me but I tend to take it all with a pinch of salt.

Reminds me of the Los Angeles Jack Kirby exhibition and panel that I attended several years ago on one of my infrequent visits to the USA.  Glen was actually sat behind me in the audience for that one.  I thought too much emphasis was placed on Jack's Fourth World stuff which I think was down to the interests of the panel and the people behind the exhibition.  Still very interesting despite my own personal reservations about the bias.

Edited by The Voord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Taylor G said:

Harvey Kurtzman over Wally Wood?

Seriously?

Yes...ever hear of Alfred E. Neuman? He changed the rules with those first comic book issues of Mad. This is not the relative pablum in the Magazine.

image.png.91c9751dda2b2bafc5e846c7041565a1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know about Chris Ware, I know he sells well and has fans but has his impact been so great? And of course Alex Raymond, Burne Hogarth, or even Hal Foster not being on the list means they are basically discounting the history and importance of the adventure strip and the idea of sheer amazing technical elite craftsmanship and skill.

The argument seems to be, short term brilliance (aka one or two books working at the highest levels) is more important than long term expertise and influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, i didnt even think about Jim Lee, Frank Miller, or Todd McFarlane. How the hell can this list exist without them? An ENTIRE GENERATION of artists working today were inspired by and on some level mimicking (or at least basing their style off of) their work. Nearly everything comes out of them. And heck what about Moebius for that matter, or Herge (Georges Remi)?!

 

The more i look at this list, the more I feel its so lacking in depth and understanding of true importance, you almost cant take it seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

God, i didnt even think about Jim Lee, Frank Miller, or Todd McFarlane. How the hell can this list exist without them? An ENTIRE GENERATION of artists working today were inspired by and on some level mimicking (or at least basing their style off of) their work. Nearly everything comes out of them. And heck what about Moebius for that matter, or Herge (Georges Remi)?!

 

The more i look at this list, the more I feel its so lacking in depth and understanding of true importance, you almost cant take it seriously.

The exhibition was for American comics/creators only, so that would explain the lack of European and Japanese representation.

But, yes - glaring holes even just among the Yanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree that the curators' personal preferences guided some of those choices, and many of the exclusions.  Spiegelman has never made a secret of his disdain toward superhero stuff. 

Wood is an interesting case -- I think if you're building a canon he has to be in there somewhere.  But I think I kind of understand how he didn't make this particular cut -- you know that Wood Superduperman splash that's so awesome?  You know who did the thumbnails, then the layouts, then added a lot of the background detail?  Kurtzman.  He's in there both as an artist and as an editor whose work directed Elder, Wood, Davis, et al.  My hunch is that with 15 slots, they thought "we got Wally represented via Harvey." 

I'm not sure you can really boil the list down to 15 names.  It's kind of like trying to survive without a couple of kidneys. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0