• 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

3 hours ago, rrichards said:

I saw the exhibition when it came to the NY area and have the book .These are all good artists but I'm not so sure about Art Spiegelman, Gary Panter, Chris Ware who seem to be the darlings of the "I don't read comics but I find these artists interesting" pseudo intellectual gang.Don't get me wrong ,Maus was a classic and probably reserves Spiegelman's spot,but Chris Ware, whose work I love, just hasn't produced enough work and Panter who works in a variety of genres (loved his Pee-Wee playhouse designs) would be a definite no. His comic art drawing skills are minimal  and strikes me as a low budget Crumb. 

Spiegelman also started RAW, which supported new voices And experimentation which opened up new avenues and innovations for Comics. Crumb folded in the hippy counterculture into comics (though he wasn’t the first, but he made it popular) and Panter did the same with the Punk counterculture, that’s why I believe he is there. Ware is a stellar draftsman and has a unique way of putting the whole history of comics into a singe Page (when he’s on) and making it something personal at the same time. To me Ware is comics entry into post-modernism. 

Anyway, that is what I took away from their inclusion, just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, suspense39 said:

Spiegelman also started RAW, which supported new voices And experimentation which opened up new avenues and innovations for Comics. Crumb folded in the hippy counterculture into comics (though he wasn’t the first, but he made it popular) and Panter did the same with the Punk counterculture, that’s why I believe he is there. Ware is a stellar draftsman and has a unique way of putting the whole history of comics into a singe Page (when he’s on) and making it something personal at the same time. To me Ware is comics entry into post-modernism. 

Anyway, that is what I took away from their inclusion, just my opinion.

I get that, but do any of those trump Eisner? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Here is one list at https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-greatest-female-comic-book-creators-of-all-time

The writer would add Trina Robbins to the list. I might add Colleen Doran.

In that "inevitable person I forgot and will feel stupid I didn't mention" category  let me put in colorist extraordinaire Laura Martin. I think Trina or Colleen may deserve a place, but neither of them are people I would be anxious to add to my collection, whereas I would be happy to add anyone on my original list and already have nearly half. If anyone has a Shary Flenniken or Roz Chast in particular, I would be very interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, buttock said:

I get that, but do any of those trump Eisner? 

I didn’t include Eisner because I was just responding to RRichard with my takeaways from the show.....Eisner was one of the all time greats in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, suspense39 said:

I didn’t include Eisner because I was just responding to RRichard with my takeaways from the show.....Eisner was one of the all time greats in my opinion.

Sorry, I wasn't arguing with you, more continuing your line of reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I loved the original show-and made it a point to see both exhibits in LA during a lucky visit to LA while it was up, but I  will admit that I  was surprised by the inclusion of Feininger, for whom comics was a tiny part of a much larger career in art, and Panter, who I just didn't think belonged in the pantheon. I would absolutely have subbed in Foster, or  more likely Raymond, on the strip side and though I am not the Carl Barks fan that some are, I think he probably deserved inclusion-but  if the point was to include that "punk" sensibility that Panter brought in and to show contemporary cartoonists deserved a place at the table, I would have gone with Lynda Barry and killed two birds with one stone by making the show both more inclusive and having someone I thought was a better and more interesting comic artist. I really like Chris Ware's work and could certainly see why he was included, but I could absolutely make the argument that the show was way too  short on mainstream cartoonists and that Neal Adams might better have been added (or Jack Davis if I was in charge-the sheer  breadth of his cartooning talent still amazes me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, furthur said:

In general, I loved the original show-and made it a point to see both exhibits in LA during a lucky visit to LA while it was up, but I  will admit that I  was surprised by the inclusion of Feininger, for whom comics was a tiny part of a much larger career in art, and Panter, who I just didn't think belonged in the pantheon. I would absolutely have subbed in Foster, or  more likely Raymond, on the strip side and though I am not the Carl Barks fan that some are, I think he probably deserved inclusion-but  if the point was to include that "punk" sensibility that Panter brought in and to show contemporary cartoonists deserved a place at the table, I would have gone with Lynda Barry and killed two birds with one stone by making the show both more inclusive and having someone I thought was a better and more interesting comic artist. I really like Chris Ware's work and could certainly see why he was included, but I could absolutely make the argument that the show was way too  short on mainstream cartoonists and that Neal Adams might better have been added (or Jack Davis if I was in charge-the sheer  breadth of his cartooning talent still amazes me)

I don’t understand Barks either, but he seems to rate high with quite a few people in a crossover way....Lynda Barry would have been great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this list is utterly devoid of context.  I don't think any list will suffice without context.  At a minimum it should be broken down by era. having a list that contains both the artist and the students inspired by them is just weird. And if you include more contemporary guys that were inspired by the guys that were inspired by the older guys it's hopelessly jumbled.  You need to differentiate Illustrators from Cartoonists from Comic artists. There's over-lap and some cross-over, but mostly they stay in their lane, even if they inspired someone in a different lane. Raymond to Williamson for example.  And any list that excludes Raymond and Foster is utterly without merit and deserves the harshest of criticism for the oversight.  This is a complete circle-jerk of a list.

Edited by MYNAMEISLEGION
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

this list is utterly devoid of context.  I don't think any list will suffice without context.  At a minimum it should be broken down by era. having a list that contains both the artist and the students inspired by them is just weird. And if you include more contemporary guys that were inspired by the guys that were inspired by the older guys it's hopelessly jumbled.  You need to differentiate Illustrators from Cartoonists from Comic artists. There's over-lap and some cross-over, but mostly they stay in their lane, even if they inspired someone in a different lane. Raymond to Williamson for example.  And any list that excludes Raymond and Foster is utterly without merit and deserves the harshest of criticism for the oversight.  This is a complete circle-jerk of a list.

I think that's a bit harsh, but the list should break down artists who primarily were sequential/book artists from strip artists. In my view, the sequential aspect of this art form is crucial to books in a way that does not exist in panel strips. For those who ventured into cartoons, like Toth, I would not count that work when evaluating their impact because it is a very different medium than print.

Where to put some of them like Mac Raboy may be tough, although I think his Cap'n Marvel Jr. work was more significant than his Flash Gordan work (despite its longevity and quality).

Breaking things down by era just produces a list of really good artists. Not necessarily significant artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, what I mean is- chronologically, one era informs the others, and while there is overlap, broadly the illustrators of the early 20th century inspired Raymond and Foster, which is very different than the more cartoony aspect of the rise of comic strips, which in turn morph into the comics medium, and evolve into the graphic novel format.   Chris Ware doesn't have a career without those stages of evolution of the medium.  which is why this list is (stupid CGC censoring this list is poop) .  without Eisner there is no Ware.

Edited by MYNAMEISLEGION
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

well, what I mean is- chronologically, one era informs the others, and while there is overlap, broadly the illustrators of the early 20th century inspired Raymond and Foster, which is very different than the more cartoony aspect of the rise of comic strips, which in turn morph into the comics medium, and evolve into the graphic novel format.   Chris Ware doesn't have a career without those stages of evolution of the medium.  which is why this list is (stupid CGC censoring this list is poop) .  without Eisner there is no Ware.

Every artist has antecedents. Eisner certainly built on what had come before and the earliest comic strips drew on humorous work by people like Hogarth (William, not Burne)  but that doesn't mean the earliest antecedent is the Master. The exhibit was titled Masters of American Comics. As Glen noted starting this thread, it may have been an attempt to create a Canon-and certainly I don't think it completely succeeded in that-but mostly because the scope was too big to begin with. If it had been Masters of American Comic Strips and only had the comic strip guys they included it would clearly have been a bad job-and the same with American Comic Book Artists-but to have an exhibit with more than 15 artists and actually show a representative sample of their work would also have been a difficult task. My 15 would have certainly been different-but I think we all could probably pick 15 strip artists and 15 comic artists and then we would still be fighting over who got left out and why someone was included over someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, furthur said:

Every artist has antecedents. Eisner certainly built on what had come before and the earliest comic strips drew on humorous work by people like Hogarth (William, not Burne)  but that doesn't mean the earliest antecedent is the Master. 

Spot-on, Benno. :applause: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

well, what I mean is- chronologically, one era informs the others, and while there is overlap, broadly the illustrators of the early 20th century inspired Raymond and Foster, which is very different than the more cartoony aspect of the rise of comic strips, which in turn morph into the comics medium, and evolve into the graphic novel format.   Chris Ware doesn't have a career without those stages of evolution of the medium.  which is why this list is (stupid CGC censoring this list is poop) .  without Eisner there is no Ware.

I think that in “real life” you could actually argue that one era is more of a reaction to the prior era than a follow on. But in this situation, I think they just represent different artistic approaches.

Krazy Kat started around 1913, while Barney Google and Snuffy Smith date to around 1919. Alex Raymond’s Flash Gordon started in 1934. Also, compare the different art styles in Captain Marvel (C.C. Beck) with Captain Marvel, Jr. (Raboy). Same time period and subject matter, no less, but very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2019 at 11:32 AM, F For Fake said:

. I would also argue for Walt Kelly.

It's hard to argue against him in any short list.  No one else was a major player in both comic books and comic strips and his strip was hugely influential in terms of the broader culture and even politics of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, adamstrange said:

It's hard to argue against him in any short list.  No one else was a major player in both comic books and comic strips and his strip was hugely influential in terms of the broader culture and even politics of the country.

Well, "Natcherly!" "As any fool kin plainly see!" then you gotta have Al Capp then too.

"Ah has spoken!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

Well, "Natcherly!" "As any fool kin plainly see!" then you gotta have Al Capp then too.

"Ah has spoken!"

Possibly.  But Al Capp was not the artist that Kelly was nor did he have any real impact in comic books, apart from funding Toby, run by his brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

Possibly.  But Al Capp was not the artist that Kelly was nor did he have any real impact in comic books, apart from funding Toby, run by his brother.

I dunno, comparing their 2 wiki write ups, Abner had more comic appearances than Pogo, and Capp was the Stan Lee of his day and medium. But I'm guessing you mean influence anthropomorphic comics- but that's hard to tease out from all that Disney did.

Edited by MYNAMEISLEGION
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

I dunno, comparing their 2 wiki write ups, Abner had more comic appearances than Pogo, and Capp was the Stan Lee of his day and medium. But I'm guessing you mean influence anthropomorphic comics- but that's hard to tease out from all that Disney did. 

Lil'Abner was a hugely popular strip and, culturally very influential in the US which is why I say Capp should be considered for inclusion. I'm not sure what parallel you are trying to draw with respect to Stan Lee.

Kelly was one of the earliest comic book artists drawing original material, then became a highly-regarded Disney animator and then came back to comics where he wrote/drew/inked original material in a variety of genres, not just Disney ducks. 

That Abner had more comic appearances is partly due to reprints in comic books whereas Pogo was reprinted in premium paperback editions.  It was also due to more of Abner being drawn during the 30/40s in the heyday of syndicated strips.  As the decades went by, fewer and fewer comic books were made from reprints.  It looks (from a very cursory search on my part) like Lil Abner was not reprinted much after 1955 in comic books or paperbacks.

Both Kelly and Capp had highly regarded syndicated strips but Capp does not have a repertoire of comic book masterpieces that remotely rival Kelly.

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