[Electricmastro]

That Miss Liberty cover demonstrated one of the most common mistakes you see in Comics Art.Often on covers. Figure in motion, one leg shorter or more distorted than the other. Yes, visually one leg will look shorter than the other, but it looks dreadful if you don't get the perspective right.
The best artists will work with models and pose them in the situations they want to draw, then photograph them and work from the photos. That's a good idea but working with a photograph can leave you with a flat and somewhat distorted image. What the Miss Liberty cover suggests to me is that this is the writers thumbnail sketch, intended for the artist to turn into a decent drawing but used as the cover out of laziness or to meet a deadline.

That cover is way too detailed and finished to be a thumbnail sketch.  But I take it that you meant that the lazy artist just used the scribbled thumbnail sketch as a framework (perhaps blowing it up, then penciling over it on a light board, then inking directly over the poor pencil drawing.  He looks like he has a withered leg from a bout with polio, and the man in the suit must have had a run in with a shark, who ate a big chunk of the man's upper left thigh!  Poor guy!

Found out that it appears to be a traced swipe of Irv Novick

[Electricmastro]

Zoo Funnies didn

[Robb_K]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Lee Sherman worked mainly for Fox Features, Robert Farrell's publications, and Charlton, none of which had high standards for their published artwork. 

[Electricmastro]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Lee Sherman worked mainly for Fox Features, Robert Farrell's publications, and Charlton, none of which had high standards for their published artwork.

I think that could be said of many publishers of the time really, or the bosses at the top to be more specific, only going as far as the bare minimum of mostly coherent stories and passable artwork so as to justify to sellers to put them on the racks, with varying factors thrown in as to what stories look worse than others depending on deadlines, exceptions being made, how motivated the artists are aside from pay, etc. Sure, there were companies that specifically focused more on making them art look great, though the writing might still end up being less than stellar. I know that EC is the biggest exception there, even if some other comic enthusiasts from today might not be particularly interested in their material either even if they recognize how politically, socially, and gory EC could get, in favor of modern comics. Just another matter of what standards we have ourselves I suppose.

[Electricmastro]

As ambitious as George Tukel was, he seemed to always have trouble with drawing anatomy, particularly the eyes. It

[The Australian Panther]

I would actually hesitate to call the examples here 'Bad' art. Certainly it's not good art. His layouts are quite imaginative. The story-telling is good. Seems to me that he was either young and learning his craft or cynically barely sketching the final product.

Cheers!   

[Robb_K]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Lee Sherman worked mainly for Fox Features, Robert Farrell's publications, and Charlton, none of which had high standards for their published artwork.

I think that could be said of many publishers of the time really, or the bosses at the top to be more specific, only going as far as the bare minimum of mostly coherent stories and passable artwork so as to justify to sellers to put them on the racks, with varying factors thrown in as to what stories look worse than others depending on deadlines, exceptions being made, how motivated the artists are aside from pay, etc. Sure, there were companies that specifically focused more on making them art look great, though the writing might still end up being less than stellar. I know that EC is the biggest exception there, even if some other comic enthusiasts from today might not be particularly interested in their material either even if they recognize how politically, socially, and gory EC could get, in favor of modern comics. Just another matter of what standards we have ourselves I suppose.

I've read that Fox, Farrell, and Charlton were notorious for their especially low pay to artists and writers.  So, even when better than bottom-of-the barrel artists and writers worked for them, they only worked as hard (e.g. spent as much time) as the poor pay level warranted.  I could tell that in the difference between their work for these 3 publishers vs. that they did for other publishers.

[Electricmastro]

I would actually hesitate to call the examples here 'Bad' art. Certainly it's not good art. His layouts are quite imaginative. The story-telling is good. Seems to me that he was either young and learning his craft or cynically barely sketching the final product.

Cheers!

I don't think it is a coincidence that Lee Sherman worked mainly for Fox Features, Robert Farrell's publications, and Charlton, none of which had high standards for their published artwork.

I think that could be said of many publishers of the time really, or the bosses at the top to be more specific, only going as far as the bare minimum of mostly coherent stories and passable artwork so as to justify to sellers to put them on the racks, with varying factors thrown in as to what stories look worse than others depending on deadlines, exceptions being made, how motivated the artists are aside from pay, etc. Sure, there were companies that specifically focused more on making them art look great, though the writing might still end up being less than stellar. I know that EC is the biggest exception there, even if some other comic enthusiasts from today might not be particularly interested in their material either even if they recognize how politically, socially, and gory EC could get, in favor of modern comics. Just another matter of what standards we have ourselves I suppose.

I've read that Fox, Farrell, and Charlton were notorious for their especially low pay to artists and writers.  So, even when better than bottom-of-the barrel artists and writers worked for them, they only worked as hard (e.g. spent as much time) as the poor pay level warranted.  I could tell that in the difference between their work for these 3 publishers vs. that they did for other publishers.

Good points.

[Robb_K]

I would actually hesitate to call the examples here 'Bad' art. Certainly it's not good art. His layouts are quite imaginative. The story-telling is good. Seems to me that he was either young and learning his craft or cynically barely sketching the final product.

Cheers!

I don't think it is a coincidence that Lee Sherman worked mainly for Fox Features, Robert Farrell's publications, and Charlton, none of which had high standards for their published artwork.

I think that could be said of many publishers of the time really, or the bosses at the top to be more specific, only going as far as the bare minimum of mostly coherent stories and passable artwork so as to justify to sellers to put them on the racks, with varying factors thrown in as to what stories look worse than others depending on deadlines, exceptions being made, how motivated the artists are aside from pay, etc. Sure, there were companies that specifically focused more on making them art look great, though the writing might still end up being less than stellar. I know that EC is the biggest exception there, even if some other comic enthusiasts from today might not be particularly interested in their material either even if they recognize how politically, socially, and gory EC could get, in favor of modern comics. Just another matter of what standards we have ourselves I suppose.

I've read that Fox, Farrell, and Charlton were notorious for their especially low pay to artists and writers.  So, even when better than bottom-of-the barrel artists and writers worked for them, they only worked as hard (e.g. spent as much time) as the poor pay level warranted.  I could tell that in the difference between their work for these 3 publishers vs. that they did for other publishers.

Good points.

Mind you, I can only speak with authority about funny animal and extremely cartoony-style Human figure comedy comics artists, as I didn't read the realistic Human character comics other than Classics Illustrated and a few stray books, and didn't learn about the artists in those genres.  But, I have read in some articles and in posts on this forum the same conclusions about those 3 companies related to superhero and action comics artists.

[Electricmastro]

I would actually hesitate to call the examples here 'Bad' art. Certainly it's not good art. His layouts are quite imaginative. The story-telling is good. Seems to me that he was either young and learning his craft or cynically barely sketching the final product.

Cheers!

I don't think it is a coincidence that Lee Sherman worked mainly for Fox Features, Robert Farrell's publications, and Charlton, none of which had high standards for their published artwork.

I think that could be said of many publishers of the time really, or the bosses at the top to be more specific, only going as far as the bare minimum of mostly coherent stories and passable artwork so as to justify to sellers to put them on the racks, with varying factors thrown in as to what stories look worse than others depending on deadlines, exceptions being made, how motivated the artists are aside from pay, etc. Sure, there were companies that specifically focused more on making them art look great, though the writing might still end up being less than stellar. I know that EC is the biggest exception there, even if some other comic enthusiasts from today might not be particularly interested in their material either even if they recognize how politically, socially, and gory EC could get, in favor of modern comics. Just another matter of what standards we have ourselves I suppose.

I've read that Fox, Farrell, and Charlton were notorious for their especially low pay to artists and writers.  So, even when better than bottom-of-the barrel artists and writers worked for them, they only worked as hard (e.g. spent as much time) as the poor pay level warranted.  I could tell that in the difference between their work for these 3 publishers vs. that they did for other publishers.

Good points.

Mind you, I can only speak with authority about funny animal and extremely cartoony-style Human figure comedy comics artists, as I didn't read the realistic Human character comics other than aClassics Illustrated and a few stray books, and didn't learn about the artists in those genres.  But, I have read in some articles and in posts on this forum the same conclusions about those 3 companies related to superhero and action comics artists.

I

[Robb_K]

I

[Jetstone]

OLAF BJORN who is the artist for NORGE BENSON (PLANET COMICS #22) is a grand candidate if only for his duck billed, cat clawed behemoth's alone.

[Electricmastro]

OLAF BJORN who is the artist for NORGE BENSON (PLANET COMICS #22) is a grand candidate if only for his duck billed, cat clawed behemoth's alone.

You mean Al Walker? Not sure how often he came up with his own designs for the characters he drew the stories in, though I though he was usually pretty slick and vibrant in the grand scheme of his art that I saw. He might be one of my underappreciated favorite comic book artists of the time actually.

[Jetstone]

Gosh electro, Al Walker is the artist. I guess I should look at the entire page next time. Here is the aforementioned critter that inspired my nomination.

[Robb_K]

I also disliked the cartoony artwork of Sangor artist Carl Wessler (AKA Cy King):


I guess Wessler and his editors figured that kids wouldn't know the difference between good and poor drawing!  But they DID!

[Electricmastro]

I also disliked the cartoony artwork of Sangor artist Carl Wessler (AKA Cy King):


I guess Wessler and his editors figured that kids wouldn't know the difference between good and poor drawing!  But they DID!

Obviously part of making cartoon media involves exaggeration, but the way Wessler drew his bug-eyed stares likely did more to take away from his art than to add to it. I wonder if the effect would be better if he had drawn actual bug characters more often though.

[Jetstone]

When you ink with a brush exclusively ( which is pretty difficult ) the tendency is to get thick with your lines too often, mashing the brush down and you sometimes end up with a flat look.. like the tree trunk and the mountain. It's quick though... and the line flows out of a full brush forever so it has a rhythmic feel to it as you tilt the tip vertically and then back down to get a range of variation. It appears Karrots was done with one size brush. Then your tip goes after a while and your lines never get but so thin.

[mopee167]

Yeah, not everyone can handle a brush like Will Eisner or Lou Fine.

[Robb_K]

Yeah, not everyone can handle a brush like Will Eisner or Lou Fine.

Wessler should have got new brushes when their points were too worn(blunted).  Or he should have used a finer pointed brush or a pen for fine lines.  If I can use a pen for inking fine lines, he could have, too.

[Jetstone]

My artwork under SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION was done yesterday with a # 5 brush whose tip was going.
I used to try to do tapering lines like Russ Heath but when my clients started using a tee shirt printer who used CorelDraw where you have to have a solid line surrounding areas to color from the palette as a vector object I changed to fatter lines just to trace and color easier. Here's a copy of it. I did about 50 or more with this weight line. I'll upload a few more later. That program is great because it gives you pure trap black as opposed to 4 color black which has a less than black tint.