One thing that both the
Phil May and Charles Dana Gibson works have in common, is that they are both a form of storytelling.
We forget today, that it took a while for printers to move from woodcuts to actually being able to print photographs. So Illustrations weren't not just pictures, they were also records and therefore serve as commentary.
that movement that packed kids off over here to Canada sent my whole family over.
Interesting that we got onto that subject! I'm always pleasantly surprised as to where these dialogues end up.
This happened in Australia and probably New Zealand as well and in many cases there was not a happy ending.
I wish I hadn't included the Coles Phillips work, not because it isn't stunning, but the other two work well together and Coles Phillps' work is something quite different.
A Note. His faces are so individual and distinctive that he must have been doing what amounts to portraits of a number of models and acquaintances
Somebody asked what style his work was. I can't give it a name, but there are elements of
Art Deco there, I think, and of what they called 'Pop Art' in the 60's. I was reminded of the Beatles Portraits that
Richard Avedon did for LOOK magazine.
https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/192458584045544412/ This is what is important about
Phil May. May was a major influence on the style of cartoon drawing in the 20th century. In 1918, Percy Bradshaw wrote in The Art of the Illustrator that May "surely gave more magic to a single line than any draftsman who has ever lived, and he was unquestionably the creator of the simplified technique of modern humorous drawing".May's work was a major influence on David Low. Low recalled that his early aspirations were dampened when he saw the "intricate technical quality" of most Punch cartoons, which seemed too difficult to emulate: "But then I came on Phil May, who combined quality with apparent facility ... Once having discovered Phil May I never let him go."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_May_%28caricaturist%29This has been said of Phil May;-
His overflowing sense of fun, his genuine sympathy with his subjects, and his kindly wit were on a par with his artistic ability.
And this has been said of of Charles Dana Gibson
From the start, Gibson's interests were in portraying the social set rather than political figures, and his audience enjoyed the manner in which he poked fun at high society characters with their idiosyncrasies.
https://americanillustration.org/project/charles-dana-gibson/ Looking at May and Gibson's work together has made me appreciate something.
In both mens work we are looking at two different social strata of London.
Gibson. If I look, for example at 'On Bond Street', 'A first Night' 'Church Parade' or the women in 'Waiting' I don't see a single smile, nor does anybody appear to be relaxed, having fun, enjoying life. They are dressed to the nines and none of them stands out as feeling free enough to express their individuality.
This is what the artist saw and decided to portray visually.
May. When I look at Phil Mays work, the clothes indicate poverty but I see life, creativity, energy.
I see people enjoying each others company, I see older children caring for younger children.
I see children creatively making something out of nothing to entertain themselves.
Hell, I believe I see the triumph of the human spirit.
'Don't you never treat yourself to no luxuries, Guvner?' and several others,
Put the two strata together and makes the divide blatantly obvious.
I asked myself, who would I rather be, one of Gibson's Toffs or one of May's Ragamuffins?
There is no contest. I think, in modern terms, I have always been a ragamuffin anyway.
Once again, I have come away from a Reading Group selection, richer than when I started.
On to the next one.