Wow! What a difference. Was the artist rushed? 0

[Cat-Man_America]

OK, I was almost hesitant to start this thread because art can be such an eye-of-the-beholder kinda thing, ...but throwing caution to the wind, I'm gonna do it anyway! 

The idea for this thread is making comparisons using examples of extreme differences in the quality of attributed art.  For instance, if your favorite artist did a remarkable cover "A" how on earth could he or she do cover "B" and get credited for it? Of coarse this leaves plenty of room for misattributions, rushed deadlines and even the possibility of work finished by a simian inker procured from the local zoo! And even the possibility that art attributions aren't always accurate.  It's already assumed that there's plenty of love for the artist's work, but this thread is for applying a critical eye and making judgment calls.

With that in mind, I'll start this off with two examples of Lou Fine cover art, the first being superb, and the second being somewhat less artistically rendered...

Please display examples of covers which demonstrate the range of quality (GOOD, BAD and even UGLY) in covers attributed to the same artist's work. 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

Here's an example of work attributed to Alex Schomburg from the same general time period...

Both are great covers, but similarities aside, the first seems better composed (the execution of the second falling short ).

I'm wondering if MM #62 is misattributed (perhaps it's by Syd Shores)?  

Anyone have examples demonstrating inexplicable differences in artist's work or potential misattribution???  

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Cat-Man_America

[mica]

On 1/14/2021 at 9:10 PM, Cat-Man_America said:

P 

My word. was the model Jerry Lewis?  If I saw a guy dressed like that and he struck that pose, I'd probably shoot first and my neighbors would thank me.

That is on a remarkable level of disturbing.

[catman76]

Comic books were the lowest of the lowest and no one cared and they hacked this stuff out fast so of course the artwork is all over the place which is what I like. All I know is I love that Hit #15 that's what I love about old comics that wonky, weird art.

[Cat-Man_America]

25 minutes ago, catman76 said:

Comic books were the lowest of the lowest and no one cared and they hacked this stuff out fast so of course the artwork is all over the place which is what I like. All I know is I love that Hit #15 that's what I love about old comics that wonky, weird art.

That's certainly a fair argument and justification for collecting whichever comics you like.  What I'm looking for are distinctions between attributions.  This may lead to uncovering misattributed art. 

As an artist myself, I recognize when corners are cut in order to finish work on rushed deadlines.  Some disparity is entirely understandable, obvious and worth noting.  Stylistic flourishes often pinpoint an artist's technique beyond dispute, but there are outliers.  So, the idea is to assess which artists were actually responsible for which work and reconsider attributions where they're questionable.

Perhaps I hold comics in too high regard, but you're right, before being auctioned for millions comic books were just hacked out pieces of disposable ephemera that very few folks cared about. 

[Spyder!]

Here is an excellent cover by Dan Zolnerowich, followed by one that’s not so great.