Fawcett Books can be so Damn Cheap 6 6

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

I think this is the second Fawcett I own at the moment. Just in.

 

 

[fifties]

[Jayman]

On 9/15/2022 at 11:11 AM, Robot Man said:

A great Winslow cover with him being tied up by Singapore Sal. 

 

[Jayman]

[Robot Man]

I don’t buy very many Fawcetts these days but bumped into these VERY reasonable issues at WonderCon.

The Whiz has a cool WWII cover and I have never run into one.

The Xmas #4 hits 2 chords with me. A super fat Giant and a Christmas cover. Also has a felt feature on the title and on Santa.

Edited April 1 by Robot Man

[paqart]

On 2/28/2020 at 1:19 PM, Kevin.J said:

I probably have a few dozen or so mainly Captain Marvel, I wish they were more readily available over here in the UK, I would buy them 

 

 

 

 

I just bought three over the last few days. The reason is that I suddenly realized what a good artist C.C. Beck is. It's amazing how under-rated he is. Other collectors can have the Mac Raboy covers. Beck's draghtsmanship reminds me of industrial design. For the level of detail, it's perfect and has more volume per line than anyone out there. At this moment, my two favorite GA artists are Carl Barks and C.C. Beck. For SA, probably Carl Barks and Jack Kirby, then Gil Kane and Johnny Romita in BA.

As for the stories, I happen to like them. They are refreshing in contrast to the bleak, dark, and sadistic material that has become so popular since Miller's Dark Knight came out and changed comics for the next 40 years. I also like the fact they aren't filled with all the weirdness found in 1950's horror comics. It's no surprise they outsold Superman; they're more family-friendly than anything outside of Disney, with all the adventure craved by readers of superhero comics.

[Robot Man]

On 4/9/2024 at 8:09 PM, paqart said:

I just bought three over the last few days. The reason is that I suddenly realized what a good artist C.C. Beck is. It's amazing how under-rated he is. Other collectors can have the Mac Raboy covers. Beck's draghtsmanship reminds me of industrial design. For the level of detail, it's perfect and has more volume per line than anyone out there. At this moment, my two favorite GA artists are Carl Barks and C.C. Beck. For SA, probably Carl Barks and Jack Kirby, then Gil Kane and Johnny Romita in BA.

As for the stories, I happen to like them. They are refreshing in contrast to the bleak, dark, and sadistic material that has become so popular since Miller's Dark Knight came out and changed comics for the next 40 years. I also like the fact they aren't filled with all the weirdness found in 1950's horror comics. It's no surprise they outsold Superman; they're more family-friendly than anything outside of Disney, with all the adventure craved by readers of superhero comics.

The Barks ducks are masterpieces. Some of my favorite books in the hobby. I find the Fawcett stuff a bit less exciting. I have quite a few nice ones but would sell them off first before a lot of my other books. Just personal taste.

I discovered ECs at a young age. They grabbed me like no other books. Lead me into PCH, Crime & Sci-Fi. My tastes in superhero have always been darker characters like The Spectre, Dr. Fate, early Batman, Capt. America and other fringe characters.

Always seemed like “forbidden fruit” Not that I don’t like some light hearted Capt. Marvel or Superman from time to time but I would have been long gone from this hobby without the weirder stuff.

Then again, I was always more of a Rolling Stones fan than a Beatles fan in the early days.

No wrong answers here, just different tastes…

[adamstrange]

On 4/9/2024 at 11:09 PM, paqart said:

The reason is that I suddenly realized what a good artist C.C. Beck is. It's amazing how under-rated he is. Other collectors can have the Mac Raboy covers

Raboy is an illustrator and it is a joy to view his art.

Beck is a cartoonist and story teller and it is a joy to read his stories.

[paqart]

On 4/10/2024 at 2:48 PM, adamstrange said:

Raboy is an illustrator and it is a joy to view his art.

Beck is a cartoonist and story teller and it is a joy to read his stories.

As illustrations, I much prefer Beck's covers to Raboy's. Within Raboy's own work, I much prefer his Flash Gordon material to what he did for Fawcett. Like Jim Starlin, I think Raboy is over-rated. For instance, Frank Brunner's inking style is similar to what Raboy did on Flash Gordon, but Brunner's compositions are much more dynamic.

I think of Raboy as a cartoonist, not an illustrator, to the extent those two titles can be separated. The reason is that his sequential art never rises to the level of finish demanded of an illustration. Few comic book artists ever manage to do that, but some have: Frazetta, Mark Shultz, Jeff Jones, Bernie Wrightson, Richard Corben, and Jean Giraud (Moebius) are examples of some who have.

The distinction you are making is, I think, different. You may be referring to the quality of "realism" where Beck is in the middle of a spectrum where George Herriman's Krazy Kat is on one end, and Alex Ross on the other. On that scale, Raboy is more realistic than Beck, but that doesn't make him more of an illustrator. Plenty of illustrators make highly unrealistic and even sketchy or loose illustrations.

The more realistic an illustration becomes, the less aesthetically appealing it is to me. This is because realism often comes with greater dependence on reference and less compositional flexibility. This is largely because the artists known for realism tend to not understand structure as well as their non-realist counterparts, and cannot make up more dynamic poses, camera angles, or settings. Also, an argument can be made that Beck is more realistic than Raboy. The biggest difference between the two is that Beck mostly ignores lighting, but Raboy emphasizes it. However, Beck emphasizes structure, and I think does so more successfully than Raboy's lighting. The best treatment of lighting I've ever seen by a comic book artist is Bernie Wrightson, with David Mazzuchelli a close second. 

The problem with lighting in comics is that the convention of black outlines, shadows, and shading works against any level of realism. Black, or even near black, is so rare in any natural environment, even on objects painted black, that it's use in comics immediately reduces their realism. Personally, I find Carl Barks, a "cartoonist" capable of far more "realistic" art than Raboy, an "illustrator." The reason is that the way Barks' duck characters interact with their environments is far more convincing than in Raboy's work, regardless of his use of shadow, because of the way he composes his images.

[adamstrange]

On 4/11/2024 at 2:51 PM, paqart said:

As illustrations, I much prefer Beck's covers to Raboy's. Within Raboy's own work, I much prefer his Flash Gordon material to what he did for Fawcett. Like Jim Starlin, I think Raboy is over-rated. For instance, Frank Brunner's inking style is similar to what Raboy did on Flash Gordon, but Brunner's compositions are much more dynamic.

I think of Raboy as a cartoonist, not an illustrator, to the extent those two titles can be separated. The reason is that his sequential art never rises to the level of finish demanded of an illustration. Few comic book artists ever manage to do that, but some have: Frazetta, Mark Shultz, Jeff Jones, Bernie Wrightson, Richard Corben, and Jean Giraud (Moebius) are examples of some who have.

The distinction you are making is, I think, different. You may be referring to the quality of "realism" where Beck is in the middle of a spectrum where George Herriman's Krazy Kat is on one end, and Alex Ross on the other. On that scale, Raboy is more realistic than Beck, but that doesn't make him more of an illustrator. Plenty of illustrators make highly unrealistic and even sketchy or loose illustrations.

The more realistic an illustration becomes, the less aesthetically appealing it is to me. This is because realism often comes with greater dependence on reference and less compositional flexibility. This is largely because the artists known for realism tend to not understand structure as well as their non-realist counterparts, and cannot make up more dynamic poses, camera angles, or settings. Also, an argument can be made that Beck is more realistic than Raboy. The biggest difference between the two is that Beck mostly ignores lighting, but Raboy emphasizes it. However, Beck emphasizes structure, and I think does so more successfully than Raboy's lighting. The best treatment of lighting I've ever seen by a comic book artist is Bernie Wrightson, with David Mazzuchelli a close second. 

The problem with lighting in comics is that the convention of black outlines, shadows, and shading works against any level of realism. Black, or even near black, is so rare in any natural environment, even on objects painted black, that it's use in comics immediately reduces their realism. Personally, I find Carl Barks, a "cartoonist" capable of far more "realistic" art than Raboy, an "illustrator." The reason is that the way Barks' duck characters interact with their environments is far more convincing than in Raboy's work, regardless of his use of shadow, because of the way he composes his images.

I called Raboy an illustrator because I think he was a creator of pretty pictures who got into comics to earn a living.  He drew for comics and newspaper strips but his stories don't "read" as well as Beck because, to my eyes, he prized his art above his stories.

I called Beck a cartoonist/story teller because he emphasized how important story-telling was to him in a number of interviews.  He drew just what was needed to get across the stories of Capt Marvel and other characters, usually in a simplified style.

Beck sometimes drew realistic, like the cover to Whiz 18.

https://www.comics.org/issue/1448/cover/4/

[paqart]

On 4/11/2024 at 10:45 PM, adamstrange said:

I called Raboy an illustrator because I think he was a creator of pretty pictures who got into comics to earn a living.  He drew for comics and newspaper strips but his stories don't "read" as well as Beck because, to my eyes, he prized his art above his stories.

I called Beck a cartoonist/story teller because he emphasized how important story-telling was to him in a number of interviews.  He drew just what was needed to get across the stories of Capt Marvel and other characters, usually in a simplified style.

Beck sometimes drew realistic, like the cover to Whiz 18.

https://www.comics.org/issue/1448/cover/4/

That CMA 18 is fantastic. It's on my want list. Same for number 132. The thing about Beck is that he is very capable of creating a compelling cover. Carl Barks is more of a "cartoonist" because he focuses on the story to the exclusion of all else. His covers are sometimes excellent, like FC 199 (my favorite), but usually amount to well-drawn gags. I think Beck is better than Barks at cover illustration, though Barks is, in my opinion, the best comic creator to have ever worked in the medium. Raboy, I class with any number of of temporarily hot artists, whose work was different from others of their period for a little while, but who didn't add much to the medium, like Gray Morrow or Joe Quesada. 

Edited Friday at 04:02 PM by paqart

[paqart]

An example of the difference between Raboy and Beck, with two similar covers.

The biggest difference to me, and a typical difference between Raboy and Beck, is that Raboy does not integrate his figures with the perspective of the scene, but Beck does. This is typical of artists don't understand perspective well enough to make the best use of their photo reference. It is also typical of artists who use photo reference of models in their studio, or even drawings of models in a studio. 

This trait is most easily spotted when the artist uses three-point perspective, characterized by an overhead view looking down, as in both of these covers. In the Beck cover, though the effect is subtle, Captain Marvel is clearly oriented so that his feet are closest to the "camera" and his left fist is furthest from the camera. In the Raboy cover, every part of Captain Marvel jr.'s body is equidistant from the virtual lens, as if he were a specimen on a glass slide under a microscope. 

Every cover I've ever seen by Raboy and Beck are like these: the Raboy's feature characters that appear to be mounted on glass slides parallel to the camera's viewing plane, and Beck's have characters that are integrated with the perspective of their environment. This is not a small thing, because it highlights the lack of a fundamental art skill in Raboy's case, and the presence of it in Beck's. This particular metric is one of the easiest ways to spot artists who never fully understood how to draw in perspective. 

The second issue, less easy to spot in these covers, is the lighting. While it is possible to have multiple light sources cast shadows from different directions, it is unusual to see that in a daylight landscape, like in these covers. The little rocket held by Captain Marvel Jr. has a highlight indicating a small light source above and to the right of Captain Marvel Jr. The battleship below him has shadows indicating a large light source (the sun) above and to the left of Captain Marvel Jr. The lighting on Captain Marvel Jr. indicates a broad light source roughly centered on his figure and slightly above his head.

This type of mistake is common among comic book artists, but Beck never does it. In the Whiz cover by Beck, the shadows on Captain Marvel are consistent with the cast shadows on the island below. A secondary related point is that the density of shadows on the Whiz covers are consistent, but they are inconsistent in the Captain Marvel Jr. cover. The battleship has solid filled blacks, Captain Marvel Jr.'s body has fine soft edges leading to narrow solid blacks, and the rocket has nothing but soft feathered shading.

There are artists who use photo reference well, capably integrating characters and environments, like David Mazzuchelli. Others, like Raboy, Starlin, Sinkevitch, and Alex Ross, are much less successful. The reason it is easiest to see this with three point perspective is that a bird's eye view is more difficult to simulate by photographing a model than a more conventional perspective. Most artists don't have a way to physically get above their model to make such an image. This is irrelevant to artists like Beck (or Gil Kane, Romita Sr and Jr, Johnny Craig, Jack Davis, etc) because they understand both perspective and structure. 

And that leads us to structure. Beck has mastered this, but Raboy clearly hasn't. An easy way to illustrate this is to imagine the difference between a circle and a sphere. Lazy artists, and those who don't know the difference, or artists in a rush, will use a circle template or a compass to represent a sphere. This is wrong for a reason that should be readily apparent. A circle is a cross-section of a sphere, but cannot represent a sphere accurately because a sphere bulges equally in all directions from its center. Thanks to perspective, this means that the circular cross section is distorted at the center, creating a subtle bulge.

C.C. Beck is aware of this, as is evident in the way he draws his characters. Despite their simple outlines, he always takes into account the volume of the structures he draws. Raboy (and most other artists, even those that understand perspective well) don't do this. For that reason, Beck's figures appear more fully rounded than Raboy's, which are flat in comparison. This is also visible in the way each artist draws rounded objects in perspective. Beck's drawing of twisted train tracks, for instance, beautifully retains the volume of the curved metal rails as they twist around each other. I have a hard time believing Raboy could have drawn this as well unless he had a sample of twisted tracks to draw.

This is the reason perspective is so important to comic book artists. Without that knowledge, you become reliant on the exact camera angles and state of an object's structure as seen in photo reference. If you understand structure and perspective, you can invent things, such as the twisted train tracks.

Next, we come to the compositions. Here, Beck's advantage over Raboy is that he exhibits considerably more variety than Raboy, he cycles about three or four basic compositions, many of which are so similar they could be mistaken for each other, as in Master Comics 18 and 34. Look at the difference between Beck's covers and notice how he changes camera angle as needed, and how in each case, the subject in front of the camera is doing something more interesting than anything found in a Raboy cover.

Last, another issue related to lighting. In photography, it takes considerable knowledge and skill to light a subject favorably. It takes almost no skill to light a subject so that his or her image is visible to the camera. The latter type of image is often described dismissively by professional photographers as a "snap shot". Meaning, no effort went into crafting the image. The lighting in Raboy's covers resembles snapshots more than professional photographs, which is what Beck's work looks like. This is particularly evident in the cover of Master Comics 45, where Raboy's carefully drawn shadows mar the face of Captain Marvel Jr. Beck never does anything like this, but Raboy does it fairly often, though rarely as obviously as in this particular cover.

When I worked for Sony Pictures as an art director, I let an artist go (a very highly paid artist) because he made the kinds of mistakes Raboy makes in every drawing. In his place, I hired Dan Spiegle who was much better.

It is possible to make excellent covers and interior art regardless of drawing errors. Jack Kirby is an exceptional example of this, as is Matt Baker, both of whom capitalized on their strengths (action and GGA, respectively), to deflect attention from their weaknesses (Kirby's frequent use of multiple perspectives in the same frame, Baker's shortcomings in anatomical knowledge and perspective).

In the end, not only do I prefer Beck to Raboy, I prefer almost any artist to Raboy because the exact suite of problems found in Raboy's art represent all of the qualities that make an artist a poor choice for sequential art. It doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't work in the industry, nor that they can't be successful, but they go into it with serious handicaps. Their saving grace, as with Raboy, is often their inking style combined with a static minimum standard of artistic fidelity met by slavish use of photo reference to maintain carrect proportions in all characters. 

The good news for me is that Raboy's popularity make Beck's work that much more affordable to me.

 

Edited Friday at 05:42 PM by paqart