Steve Ditko actually wrote about Spider-man... A LOT 5 5

[stippy52]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

For comparison...probably the most celebrated Spiderman artist after Ditko is McFarlane.

McFarlane did a signing at CGC last month, and received 13,000 submissions, at a cost of $89 for signing and grading.

Had Ditko done something like that, he could have asked for...and gotten...$1,000 a book. And if that sounds preposterous, he was offered a LOT more.

Ditko could have made $5 million signing in a single signing, if he'd wanted to. And there were people who would have facilitated it so that he didn't have to do a thing except pick up a sharpie and sign away. And if you think that's an exaggeration...you have no idea.

Do you know how many millions of dollars Stan (well...Max) made signing in the last 10 years of his life...?

[Randall Dowling]

1 minute ago, Chuck Gower said:

Well... I mean... regardless of what we think of his work, he had a huge impact on that book and it's one of the few creations from that period that actually is getting some movie interest (Venom). AND, he did have one of the best selling Spider-man issue of all time (his Spider-man #1).

I PERSONALLY would take a Ross Andru page over a McFarlane page (of equal value) any day of the week, but... I can still say he had a huge impact on the book in general.

Completely agree with you.  I've just never liked what he did to the industry.  I was managing a comic book store at the time of that run and the creation of Image and it was really sad to watch it all shift hard into all flash and no substance.  And, of course a year or so later, the comic book market took a nose dive.  McFarlane's work is very important to a certain age group that really got into comics at that time.  And also to some who had been collecting Spider-man in the sad days of the late 80s (that's a tough stretch of books until you get to Kraven's last hunt).  But when I compare him to any one of a hundred other comic book artists, he doesn't even come close to measuring up.  He couldn't tell a story intelligently for his life.  He was too immersed in detailing knots in Spider-man's webs or curls in MJs hair.

Just my opinion.

[Prince Namor]

19 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

Completely agree with you.  I've just never liked what he did to the industry.  I was managing a comic book store at the time of that run and the creation of Image and it was really sad to watch it all shift hard into all flash and no substance.  And, of course a year or so later, the comic book market took a nose dive.  McFarlane's work is very important to a certain age group that really got into comics at that time.  And also to some who had been collecting Spider-man in the sad days of the late 80s (that's a tough stretch of books until you get to Kraven's last hunt).  But when I compare him to any one of a hundred other comic book artists, he doesn't even come close to measuring up.  He couldn't tell a story intelligently for his life.  He was too immersed in detailing knots in Spider-man's webs or curls in MJs hair.

Just my opinion.

No I agree with everything you said there except what's bolded. He WAS too immersed in detailing knots in Spider-man's webs - in stylizing his art. But if you go back to when he first got started - especially his work on Infinity, Inc., Todd very much was a regular comic book artist. He learned exactly how to tell a story the way Marvel and DC wanted - he learned the rules and then... he turned a corner that led to fame and fortune, and never looked back.

I agree man, it may be important to a certain age group, but yeah, it led comics down a bad path... one it never has recovered from.

[Buzzetta]

11 hours ago, shadroch said:

Comic wiz posts a letter from Marvel stating they don't sell artwork but will make an exception in this one case for a museum and that is proof of Marvel engaging in a conspiracy, and of course it is all Stans fault.

Should Marvel have done a better job of storing the art? Absolutely, but it wasn't some conspiracy against the artists. Where is all the DC art from that era? How about the Disney art?

I personally think the art should be returned to the artist, and recommended the Kirby family to retain lawyers to pursue the art that was stolen, but it wasn't Stan who did any of that.

I remember reading reports of Disney artists playing slip and slide with the acetate cels after production wrapped.   Also in many cases, the painted cels did not store well given the regard they were given and the conditions to which they were stored.  This is why I have seen more of the pencils survive. 

To be also fair, I actually like buying the pencils to the cels as the actual artists such as Ollie Johnson, Frank Thomas, Ward Kimball and the others did not actually paint the cels.  They were responsible for the pencils and the artists in training, the assistants and others in the 'ink and paint' department were actually responsible for final production. 

Now that I have opened my mouth, watch pencils now explode on Heritage... 

[Bird]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

For comparison...probably the most celebrated Spiderman artist after Ditko is McFarlane.

McFarlane did a signing at CGC last month, and received 13,000 submissions, at a cost of $89 for signing and grading.

Had Ditko done something like that, he could have asked for...and gotten...$1,000 a book. And if that sounds preposterous, he was offered a LOT more.

Ditko could have made $5 million signing in a single signing, if he'd wanted to. And there were people who would have facilitated it so that he didn't have to do a thing except pick up a sharpie and sign away. And if you think that's an exaggeration...you have no idea.

Do you know how many millions of dollars Stan (well...Max) made signing in the last 10 years of his life...?

right, because it wasn't ONLY about the money, it was about money rightfully earned. I wonder if he would have signed only his self-published stuff for a cgc signing...was anything like that ever requested?

 

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

So he went to the trouble of bringing it up, just so that he could say, "But I don't want anything."?

I don't think he was looking for anything after a certain point, because they could never right the wrong. But he was a capitalist who thought that he should benefit the most from his own creations, it was not ONLY a moral argument but one of wage as well.

 

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

There was no financial request.

I never said he made any requests, but yes I am saying that financial considerations were important to him. He wanted what he felt was fair and just considering his input, he didn't just want the credit and for others to admit they were wrong. It wasn't a philosophical argument, it was a practical and real world one. He felt that Spider-man and Doctor Strange were not rightful property of Marvel so he would not be able to enter into a contract in good faith regarding those characters. You can see how meaningful words were to him in his writings, imagine entering into a contract with him!

 

[Buzzetta]

3 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

Stan Lee comes across as Michael Scott but not as funny

I'm a decade late but I finally watched all nine seasons of the Office...

I now get this comment. 

[mr_highgrade]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Ditko politely, but firmly, turned it all down. "If I sign for you, I have to sign for everyone."

That's what he told me when I first met him. BTW, Greggy also met him and didn't ask for anything. He just shook his hand. 

[VintageComics]

4 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Hmmm. Geez, even when somebody TRIES to have integrity, there's always going to be SOMEONE who says, "Aww, I don't believe it!"

In this day and age, it's hard for most people to believe that someone wants the truth and doesn't want the money. Even if it's large sums of money.

That sort of belief is foreign to our society because we live in a society where everything is monetized, even honor. Society doesn't believe there are people like that out there...but there are.

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

For comparison...probably the most celebrated Spiderman artist after Ditko is McFarlane.

McFarlane did a signing at CGC last month, and received 13,000 submissions, at a cost of $89 for signing and grading.

Had Ditko done something like that, he could have asked for...and gotten...$1,000 a book. And if that sounds preposterous, he was offered a LOT more.

Ditko could have made $5 million signing in a single signing, if he'd wanted to. And there were people who would have facilitated it so that he didn't have to do a thing except pick up a sharpie and sign away. And if you think that's an exaggeration...you have no idea.

Do you know how many millions of dollars Stan (well...Max) made signing in the last 10 years of his life...?

All I have to say to this is Holy Flip.

Edited February 19, 2020 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

2 hours ago, Bird said:

It wasn't a philosophical argument, it was a practical and real world one.

Well, it was both but he put his money where his mouth was, right?

He believed something philosophically and acted on it.

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, Bird said:

I don't think he was looking for anything after a certain point, because they could never right the wrong. But he was a capitalist who thought that he should benefit the most from his own creations, it was not ONLY a moral argument but one of wage as well.

I would have to politely disagree... Ditko was hardly a capitalist in the sense of how most people understand it. AND, nowhere have I ever seen him even allude to the idea that HE should benefit the most from his own creations.

In fact, he probably makes the case more for being work for hire than even Marvel did!

His point in all of this is a) he didn't get paid for (at the time) all the work he actually did, which included the writing, b) promises about profit sharing were not kept and c) that Stan Lee's recollection of what happened is incorrect (in his own view).

I'm not sure how you tie that into 'HE should benefit the most from his creations'. He thought he should get paid fairly for what he actually DID - be credited in the books as such - and if it did well, be given the bonus that was promised. 

None of that is unfair or unjust in any way. Or anymore capitalist than your typical person going to work and doing their job. 

6 hours ago, Bird said:

 

I never said he made any requests, but yes I am saying that financial considerations were important to him. He wanted what he felt was fair and just considering his input, he didn't just want the credit and for others to admit they were wrong. It wasn't a philosophical argument, it was a practical and real world one. He felt that Spider-man and Doctor Strange were not rightful property of Marvel so he would not be able to enter into a contract in good faith regarding those characters. You can see how meaningful words were to him in his writings, imagine entering into a contract with him!

 

I've never seen him claim Spider-man and Doctor Strange were not Marvel's rightful property. Claiming what you believe in how they were created and saying you own them are two completely different things.

[theCapraAegagrus]

13 hours ago, greggy said:

Nothing out of the ordinary so I'm not sure why it got removed. 

Lmfao I ing love your new avatar.

[Unca Ben]

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

In fact, he probably makes the case more for being work for hire than even Marvel did!

Yep.  Here's an essay by Ditko on that very subject.

[comicwiz]

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

AND, nowhere have I ever seen him even allude to the idea that HE should benefit the most from his own creations.

 I don't think he ever uttered those words, but his actions could be construed as such. It is well known that Theakston had offered to get him a proper cutting board instead of using a stack of his original art as cutting boards, and Ditko refused and preferred to destroy them. That incident was written about in this NYPost article.

This fact, juxtaposed with the well known and public views he offered toward anyone in possession of his art. In his essay "The Sore Spot", he didn't mince words on what he refers to as "stolen art", and had very harsh words toward anyone who was in possession of his art. This is just an excerpt to expand on my previous point:

"I received story/art pages from 3 Spider-Man issues: 2 complete issues (inside pages) and a 3rd which had three pages missing. So, I was given, as a 'gift,' a portion of 3 issues of the 41 Spider-Man books I did. There is nothing from the Spider-Man annuals (one of which included Dr. Strange as a guest star). And no covers of any kind. What happened to those 38 missing Spider-Man books and all the other missing pages and covers? And how many other artists' names could be added to Kirby's and mine who are denied our 'original artwork' and are being 'deprived of a portion of (our) livelihood'?"

Notice how he refers to having the artwork held against his will as "depriving of a portion of (our) livelihood."

This is more of a footnote to my final point. Theakston's records appear to indicate the art he was seeing being offered for sale was likely taken from Marvel after February 1980, when Vartanoff gave up control of the warehouse. Theakston has gone on record to say he saw art for sale from the following books: Spider-Man #s 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 27. There was also art from Strange Tales 110 and 112. This is just the art that Ditko would have worked on, there was other art in Theakstons records.

So based on Ditko's essay being published in 1993, which gave him at least 13 years to mull over what he knew was happening with his art, he had plenty of time to think about how this art was finding it's way (in his view, illegitimately) into private collections, I don't think it matters whether he was a capitalist or not, if you take into account his view on being :deprived of a portion of his livelihood", I'm certain he was not thrilled about anyone other than himself profiting from it. He made his position abundantly clear in that essay.

In my personal view, he preferred the art being destroyed than to end up in the hands of anyone else profiting from it.

Edited February 19, 2020 by comicwiz

[Unca Ben]

37 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

 I don't think he ever uttered those words, but his actions could be construed as such. It is well known that Theakston had offered to get him a proper cutting board instead of using a stack of his original art as cutting boards, and Ditko refused and preferred to destroy them. That incident was written about in this NYPost article.

This fact, juxtaposed with the well known and public views he offered toward anyone in possession of his art. In his essay "The Sore Spot", he didn't mince words on what he refers to as "stolen art", and had very harsh words toward anyone who was in possession of his art. This is just an excerpt to expand on my previous point:

"I received story/art pages from 3 Spider-Man issues: 2 complete issues (inside pages) and a 3rd which had three pages missing. So, I was given, as a 'gift,' a portion of 3 issues of the 41 Spider-Man books I did. There is nothing from the Spider-Man annuals (one of which included Dr. Strange as a guest star). And no covers of any kind. What happened to those 38 missing Spider-Man books and all the other missing pages and covers? And how many other artists' names could be added to Kirby's and mine who are denied our 'original artwork' and are being 'deprived of a portion of (our) livelihood'?"

Notice how he refers to having the artwork held against his will as "depriving of a portion of (our) livelihood."

This is more of a footnote to my final point. Theakston's records appear to indicate the art he was seeing being offered for sale was likely taken from Marvel after February 1980, when Vartanoff gave up control of the warehouse. Theakston has gone on record to say he saw art for sale from the following books: Spider-Man #s 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 27. There was also art from Strange Tales 110 and 112. This is just the art that Ditko would have worked on, there was other art in Theakstons records.

So based on Ditko's essay being published in 1993, which gave him at least 13 years to mull over what he knew was happening with his art, he had plenty of time to think about how this art was finding it's way (in his view, illegitimately) into private collections, I don't think it matters whether he was a capitalist or not, if you take into account his view on being :deprived of a portion of his livelihood", I'm certain he was not thrilled about anyone other than himself profiting from it. He made his position abundantly clear in that essay.

 

This seems in conflict with the essay he wrote that I posted above.  In the first essay, Ditko concludes that the company owns the art page.  Yet, in the 'Sore Spot" essay Ditko claims that he's being "deprived of a portion of his livelihood'  by the art that wasn't returned to him.

Am I missing something?  (could be)

Is Ditko saying that he's being denied a portion of his livelihood by not getting art back even though it isn't his property?  I tried to steel-man his collective argument, but I find it difficult to do) 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Unca Ben

[Prince Namor]

29 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

 I don't think he ever uttered those words, but his actions could be construed as such. It is well known that Theakston had offered to get him a proper cutting board instead of using a stack of his original art as cutting boards, and Ditko refused and preferred to destroy them. That incident was written about in this NYPost article.

This fact, juxtaposed with the well known and public views he offered toward anyone in possession of his art. In his essay "The Sore Spot", he didn't mince words on what he refers to as "stolen art", and had very harsh words toward anyone who was in possession of his art. This is just an excerpt to expand on my previous point:

"I received story/art pages from 3 Spider-Man issues: 2 complete issues (inside pages) and a 3rd which had three pages missing. So, I was given, as a 'gift,' a portion of 3 issues of the 41 Spider-Man books I did. There is nothing from the Spider-Man annuals (one of which included Dr. Strange as a guest star). And no covers of any kind. What happened to those 38 missing Spider-Man books and all the other missing pages and covers? And how many other artists' names could be added to Kirby's and mine who are denied our 'original artwork' and are being 'deprived of a portion of (our) livelihood'?"

Notice how he refers to having the artwork held against his will as "depriving of a portion of (our) livelihood."

This is more of a footnote to my final point. Theakston's records appear to indicate the art he was seeing being offered for sale was likely taken from Marvel after February 1980, when Vartanoff gave up control of the warehouse. Theakston has gone on record to say he saw art for sale from the following books: Spider-Man #s 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 27. There was also art from Strange Tales 110 and 112. This is just the art that Ditko would have worked on, there was other art in Theakstons records.

So based on Ditko's essay being published in 1993, which gave him at least 13 years to mull over what he knew was happening with his art, he had plenty of time to think about how this art was finding it's way (in his view, illegitimately) into private collections, I don't think it matters whether he was a capitalist or not, if you take into account his view on being :deprived of a portion of his livelihood", I'm certain he was not thrilled about anyone other than himself profiting from it. He made his position abundantly clear in that essay.

In my personal view, he preferred the art being destroyed than to end up in the hands of anyone else profiting from it.

Depends on what he means by 'a portion of his livelihood'. He could mean he saves money on cutting boards by being able to use his old art.

Are there examples of Ditko selling the art he got back from Marvel? I don't think so, but I don't know for sure.

Was he angry that people were stealing it and making money off of it? 

Sure - he could 100% be the same guy who wrote the essay that Unca Ben posted above AND be furious that someone stole that art and was selling it for big money off of HIS name. Sure, there's a division of labor - but no one is making big money off of it because it's a page that Stan lee dialogued or Sam Rosen lettered - they're selling it because it's Steve Ditko's ART.

And Marvel was well aware that art was gaining value. And if not Marvel as a corporation - individuals within that corporation were well aware it was gaining value - it HAD value.

So they made a business proposition - give up all rights to ownership and we'll give you your art back. They didn't have to. They didn't have to give it back. But they saw it as LEVERAGE. For as much as everyone wants make a big deal about how greedy the artists were, and how the letterers should got their share, etc. - here is a clear case of the corporation handcuffing the people who made their empire what it is.

Ditko can say 'a portion of his livelihood', but what did he really gain? He didn't ask for it. They offered it as 'gift' - he took it - and then questioned what happened to the rest of it.

That makes him selfish? That makes him greedy?

I just don't see that correlation. He didn't profit from it. In fact, he chopped it up. 

Not wanting someone to profit off of your work that doesn't deserve to do so, especially if they've stolen, is NOT a capitalist mentality. It's a natural moral one.

[jsilverjanet]

9 hours ago, mr_highgrade said:

BTW, Greggy also met him and didn't ask for anything. He just shook his hand. 

Poor Mr Ditko

[Prince Namor]

And his 'deprived a portion of (our) livelihood' is an interesting way of putting it. He's clearly (to me) saying that - if Marvel wants to give this art back - and they have CONDITIONS to the deal - sign away your rights - then where is the rest of it? Because...

As he mentions in that same sentence "How many other artists' names can be added to Kirby's and mine...". He understood, some of those artists had families (he did not) and were not working as regular as they once were (not sure how he made enough to get by, but apparently he was happy with whatever it was). He knew that once they SIGNED OVER THEIR RIGHTS - there ability to work regular wouldn't get any better... they may NEED that artwork to make money that they no longer could. 

Marvel would go on making money off of the creations, but for some of these artists, like Kirby, giving up those rights in exchange for the artwork, would be their last chance to see some financial gain from the creations they were a part of. 

So he felt they should get as much of it as they could - and when they didn't - he questioned where it was.

I don't believe it was ever for his OWN financial gain - it's not consistent in anything else he EVER did - but he understood the situation those other artists were in.

[comicwiz]

20 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

This seems in conflict with the essay he wrote that I posted above.  In the first essay, Ditko concludes that the company owns the art page.  Yet, in the 'Sore Spot" essay Ditko claims that he's being "deprived of a portion of his livelihood'  by the art that wasn't returned to him.

Am I missing something?  (could be)

Is Ditko saying that he's being denied a portion of his livelihood by not getting art back even though it isn't his property?  I tried to steel-man his collective argument, but I find it difficult to do) 

Yes, you are astute in noticing this. And all I could say is that this wouldn't be the first time I've noticed contradiction in his view, particularly when it came to ownership of his art.

[comicwiz]

38 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Depends on what he means by 'a portion of his livelihood'. He could mean he saves money on cutting boards by being able to use his old art.

Are there examples of Ditko selling the art he got back from Marvel? I don't think so, but I don't know for sure.

Was he angry that people were stealing it and making money off of it? 

Sure - he could 100% be the same guy who wrote the essay that Unca Ben posted above AND be furious that someone stole that art and was selling it for big money off of HIS name. Sure, there's a division of labor - but no one is making big money off of it because it's a page that Stan lee dialogued or Sam Rosen lettered - they're selling it because it's Steve Ditko's ART.

And Marvel was well aware that art was gaining value. And if not Marvel as a corporation - individuals within that corporation were well aware it was gaining value - it HAD value.

So they made a business proposition - give up all rights to ownership and we'll give you your art back. They didn't have to. They didn't have to give it back. But they saw it as LEVERAGE. For as much as everyone wants make a big deal about how greedy the artists were, and how the letterers should got their share, etc. - here is a clear case of the corporation handcuffing the people who made their empire what it is.

Ditko can say 'a portion of his livelihood', but what did he really gain? He didn't ask for it. They offered it as 'gift' - he took it - and then questioned what happened to the rest of it.

That makes him selfish? That makes him greedy?

I just don't see that correlation. He didn't profit from it. In fact, he chopped it up. 

Not wanting someone to profit off of your work that doesn't deserve to do so, especially if they've stolen, is NOT a capitalist mentality. It's a natural moral one.

I think we could be agreeing on this  @Chuck Gower

I don't see it as a capitalist pursuit as much as his right to decide, although as I indicated above, there are some contradictions in his views as they evolved from the time he was "gifted" the art, and what he observed happening with art he should have been given back.

Ultimately, I don't think I have ever found enough adequate reasoning in any of his writing that you couldn't achieve some good from a moralist position - namely, that rather than preferring it be destroyed, if his moralist views were somewhat grounded on a communal concept of reclaiming the art not only for himself, but for everyone (i.e. fellow artists), then why couldn't that art be auctioned for the Hero Initiative, CBLDF, or any charity of his choice? I think the extreme side of destroying it is dislocated from a lot of his notions, and moves towards the extreme end of two wrongs to spite everyone because he can.

Edited February 19, 2020 by comicwiz

[Prince Namor]

18 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

I think we could be agreeing on this  @Chuck Gower

Mostly, but...

18 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

I don't see it as a capitalist pursuit as much as his right to decide, although as I indicated above, there are some contradictions in his views as they evolved from the time he was "gifted" the art, and what he observed happening with art he should have been given back.

Ultimately, I don't think I have ever found enough adequate reasoning in any of his writing that you couldn't achieve some good from a moralist position - namely, that rather than preferring it be destroyed, if his moralist views were somewhat grounded on a communal concept of reclaiming the art for everyone, then why couldn't that art be auctioned for the Hero Initiative, CBLDF, or any charity of his choice? I think the extreme side of destroying it is dislocated from a lot of his notions, and moves towards the extreme end of two wrongs to spite everyone because he can.

I think you're viewing it from the wrong angle.

I read it as "You want me to sign over my rights to any claim of ownership in exchange for my artwork - ok, whatever - but... where's all of my artwork? You gave me a portion of 3 issues out of 41 I did on ASM."

I just don't see a contradiction. He didn't ask for it. He didn't consider it his in the first place. But Marvel offered to give it back in exchange for something MONETARILY IMPORTANT to them. He said ok. After the fact he questioned the deal based upon how little he got. Marvel for years made it sound as if it was kept in secret storage and was of no use other than reprints.

Apparently not.