• 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.

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

583 posts in this topic

Let's not forget that Ditko had first dibs to his AF 15 OA that was eventually donated to the Library of Congress.

This is what Sara Duke one of the curators said about Ditko:

 

But one thing is clear: Artist Steve Ditko had no issue with the art’s provenance.

“I will say that Steve Ditko knew that the art was coming to the Library of Congress,” Duke says. “And even though he was an Ayn Rand objectivist, and those followers typically believe the government shouldn’t have any role in anybody’s life, he told the donor that it was theirs to do with as they wanted, and he had nothing to say about it. And that seemed very true to who he was.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

 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.

 

This ^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that the story of him cutting his art on top of old pages was apochryphal. (I didn't even try to spell that word correctly.) There was a lot of assumption in that anecdote and I thought it was later contradicted. But I stopped buying Ditko "packages" around the turn of the century! (or slightly thereafter, so my memory on this stuff is hazy.)

And I misspoke earlier, ownership of the character was not being contested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

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.

That’s true, he was surly a different type of cat.

Who would have done that back then or now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bird said:

It is my understanding that the story of him cutting his art on top of old pages was apochryphal. (I didn't even try to spell that word correctly.) There was a lot of assumption in that anecdote and I thought it was later contradicted. But I stopped buying Ditko "packages" around the turn of the century! (or slightly thereafter, so my memory on this stuff is hazy.)

And I misspoke earlier, ownership of the character was not being contested. 

Previous to the Marvel era, many artists used their old artwork to cut up and reuse. 
 

Not saying it’s a 100% true story or not, it’s impossible to know, but given his nature in regards to not idolizing the work, it wouldn’t surprise me if he used it the same way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chuck Gower said:

Previous to the Marvel era, many artists used their old artwork to cut up and reuse. 
 

Not saying it’s a 100% true story or not, it’s impossible to know, but given his nature in regards to not idolizing the work, it wouldn’t surprise me if he used it the same way. 

yes, sure. It is truly impossible to know but it is a commonly accepted story for the most part, and as I said I recall reading some more thorough discussions about it and the gist being that is atypical of what he did with his art.

I admire him and have so said earlier, but he was human and when I read those essays I see someone bitter about the topic. He wouldn't talk spider-man but he sure would opine on his own about the time at marvel and thoughts it spurred! He doesn't seem bitter as a person I will add.

One more thing...those 160 page Ditko packages were pretty bad. He was no longer telling a story first and foremost...backgrounds were lacking almost entirely and linework was simple. His art was stripped down to basics and lacked impact. At least on the batch I got, I dodn't re-order I don't think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bird said:

yes, sure. It is truly impossible to know but it is a commonly accepted story for the most part, and as I said I recall reading some more thorough discussions about it and the gist being that is atypical of what he did with his art.

I admire him and have so said earlier, but he was human and when I read those essays I see someone bitter about the topic. He wouldn't talk spider-man but he sure would opine on his own about the time at marvel and thoughts it spurred! He doesn't seem bitter as a person I will add.

My understanding is he did less than 20 essays on Marvel in the 53 years he was gone from there, and said everything he wanted to say in them. 

3 minutes ago, Bird said:

One more thing...those 160 page Ditko packages were pretty bad. He was no longer telling a story first and foremost...backgrounds were lacking almost entirely and linework was simple. His art was stripped down to basics and lacked impact. At least on the batch I got, I dodn't re-order I don't think.

Yeah, not his best stuff. 
But...the first one from 1999, he was 72 years old. He was still cranking them out in 2016 at the age of 89!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2020 at 10:18 AM, Chuck Gower said:

Ditko001e.jpeg

I wonder who takes credit for half the plagiarized characters in most comic books? IMO Dr.Strange was original and if Ditko created Spiderman I can understand his animosity towards Stan Lee. It isn't Steve Ditko in cameo in every single Marvel movie.

Ditko is Tesla to Lee's Edison.

Most people outside of the collecting community wouldn't even know who Steve Ditko is, but they would know who Stan Lee is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BaronSamedi said:

I wonder who takes credit for half the plagiarized characters in most comic books? IMO Dr.Strange was original and if Ditko created Spiderman I can understand his animosity towards Stan Lee. It isn't Steve Ditko in cameo in every single Marvel movie.

Ditko is Tesla to Lee's Edison.

Most people outside of the collecting community wouldn't even know who Steve Ditko is, but they would know who Stan Lee is.

I think the better comparison would be Lee is Jobs, Ditko/Kirby are Wozniak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jsilverjanet said:

Lee has always struck me more as a PT Barnum type of guy. There's talent there, not everyone can do that. Some are born with that spotlight and others learn how to make sure it's on them

Yes, attention seeking got him the moolah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I re-read the “Sore Spot” blog that had been linked, noting which text was blog author Patrick Ford’s comments and which text was direct quotes from Ditko’s essay.  I don’t have a copy of the original Sore Spot essay.  I wish I did.  It should be noted that at least one paragraph of the original essay quoted in the blog may be truncated at the beginning.

In his blog, Patrick Ford remarks that "Ditko had very harsh and extensive words for the comics community and its attitude towards stolen art", and that seems to be the thrust of Ditko's essay.

In the essay, Ditko is condemning the comics community (at the time) for their stand that Kirby had an “unqualified right” to all of his pages held by Marvel except for the pages held by others that were immorally or illegally taken from Marvel.
Ditko states that this hypocritical stance of the comic community (C/C) was a counter to the comic company’s claims that they were the self-evident owners of the art pages.
Ditko even laments that Marvel, despite their responsibility to protect their valued material, easily tolerated losing a piece of their property to crime.

In the quote from Ditko where he states “...(we) who are denied our 'original artwork' and are being 'deprived of a portion of (our) livelihood?”, Ditko is using the comic communities (nonsensical) view on ownership, not his own.

Now, when Ditko was talking about what pages he got back as a “gift”- which in another essay he stated that Marvel had a right to do – he was complaining about all the missing pages and about the conditions attached to the return of the few pages he got back.   That was to point out the large number of missing pages.  And where were all those missing pages?  Most were with the “thieves market” – who the comic community (at the time) seemed to be giving a pass.  (at least in his eyes)

 

The main point of Ditko’s essay “Sore Spot” seemed to be about the untenable view held by the comic community regarding art ownership of stolen pages.  The number of pages he got back was a secondary (but interesting) point in the essay, at best.

-That, by my lights, was the theme of Ditko’s essay.  I’m gonna look for a copy of the original.

Edited by Unca Ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I've said this before, but:

Ditko + Lee = Spider-Man, Dr. Strange

Kirby + Lee = FF, Thor, Hulk, X-Men, etc

 

Kirby without Lee = Fourth World, Eternals, etc

Ditko without Lee = Captain Atom and Charlton, Warren, Creeper, Hawk and Dove, etc.

 

Stan solo = Ravage 2099 and, uh, Stripperella?

 

I was a hardcore "Screw Stan" guy for a long time. In my advancing years I've softened a bit and think he is definitely due some measure of credit in those creations. But nothing close to what he claimed, and is routinely given. He was a corporate yes man who sold his co-creators out to toe the company line.  The Kindly Ol' Grandfather of Comics shtick was hilarious. He was in the business of selling Stan Lee, period. Can't fault a guy for making the most that he could, but it's a shame that he stepped on so many folks to get there. He'll always be Funky Flashman to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

I know I've said this before, but:

Ditko + Lee = Spider-Man, Dr. Strange

Kirby + Lee = FF, Thor, Hulk, X-Men, etc

 

Kirby without Lee = Fourth World, Eternals, etc

Ditko without Lee = Captain Atom and Charlton, Warren, Creeper, Hawk and Dove, etc.

 

Stan solo = Ravage 2099 and, uh, Stripperella?

Is it easier for a guitarist, or a drummer, to have individual success?

Let's just admit that their collaborations far outweigh their individual measures.

Dream Theater isn't the same without Mike Portnoy - and vice-versa.

Stan Lee simply climbed the ladder into a position of more creative control. Being the editor, publisher, producer, 'presenter', etc of Marvel gave him more control and recognition. Some guys flourish as the headman - and others don't. Stan did well in that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Is it easier for a guitarist, or a drummer, to have individual success?

Let's just admit that their collaborations far outweigh their individual measures.

Dream Theater isn't the same without Mike Portnoy - and vice-versa.

Stan Lee simply climbed the ladder into a position of more creative control. Being the editor, publisher, producer, 'presenter', etc of Marvel gave him more control and recognition. Some guys flourish as the headman - and others don't. Stan did well in that role.

Stan was great at selling Stan, for sure. And he was a great mascot for Marvel. No question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Is it easier for a guitarist, or a drummer, to have individual success?

Let's just admit that their collaborations far outweigh their individual measures.

Dream Theater isn't the same without Mike Portnoy - and vice-versa.

Stan Lee simply climbed the ladder into a position of more creative control. Being the editor, publisher, producer, 'presenter', etc of Marvel gave him more control and recognition. Some guys flourish as the headman - and others don't. Stan did well in that role.

Well Put!:martini:

Hard to argue that Scars on Broadway was successful without Serj Tankian (System of a Down) despite a pretty decent solo effort and whatever happened to Jason Newsted after he left Metallica?

When it comes to creative productivity, two minds will always operate with more effectiveness then one, so long as those two minds work in unison for one objective. And that objective was to build Marvel into what it is today, by continuing to entertain the masses while lining the owners pockets

Steve Ditko has to be honest with himself in this regard, and maybe he never wanted the spotlight to begin with.

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
5 5