[phabox]

I Think its fair to say that most of us here love Golden Age Comics and some of the GREAT talents that came out of the industry during that time.

Names such as Will Eisner, Reed Crandell, Jack Cole, Matt Baker, Simon and Kirby to name but a few.

However lets not forget that era was'nt all about fantastic artwork, just the opposite in fact, for every Bill Everett there was a dozen Carl Burgo's, for every Lou Fine plenty of George Brenners, and for every Jack Burnley more than enough Hal Sherman's.

Some of these gentlemens work was to put it kindly pretty average, and lets make no bones about it some was just BAD !

But before we condem this guys lets pause for a second and consider the reasons for their mediocrity.

Times were tough in the late 30's Early 40's and most of these guys were paid (often peanuts) by the page and therefore the only way many of them could make a half decent living was to churn their stuff out at breakneck speed and so very often even the most talented artists would have to sacrifice quality for quantity in order to pay the bills.

Its no secret that some of these guys went under and fell victim to the demon booze under pressure from the dreaded deadline doom.

Also comics were thought of as being a 'disposable' medium, very few of these guys expected any of there work to be on view a year after it hit the newstands let alone sixty years on.

Once freed of their comic book bonds some of these underated guys even went on to sucessfull careers in commercial art and other fields.

So lets spare a thought for these poor unsung 'heroes' of yesteryear, next time your looking over some scans and think " Hey, This Artwork SUCKS !" try putting yourself in the place of one these hard working professionals of the past and ask yourself; Could you have done any better in their positions ?

-Nigel

( Secret Maurice Gutwirth fan)

[OtherEric]

There's only one artist who actively annoys me on GA books: Martin Naydel.  To be fair, he did decent work on Funny Animal and Puzzle pages.  But for somebody so ill suited to Superhero books, he sure got a lot of work.

[phabox]

In fairness a lot of artists found themselves sadled with unsuitable assignments during the war years when comic book production hit its peak and LOTS of guys were away at the front.

Alway struck me as odd that Uncle Sam drafted most of the really top talents for service and seem to leave the hacks behind to keep the home fires burning.

It should be noted that at least one comic artist made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, Sandman co-creator Bert Christman who was Killed in Action, had he lived he would have gone on to be a MAJOR talent.

Another side effect of the war time staff shortage was the emergance of a few lady artists, Nina Albright, Lily Rennie, and Tarpe Mills being just some that come to mind although I'm sure there were others.

-Nigel

[John C]

Just to chime in briefly, I'd like to suggest that the industry might be much healthier if the hacks came back.  Instead, we have "fan favorite" writers who don't understand plot structure or dialogue, paired with "superstar" artists who don't understand storytelling or anatomy.  And between them, they can't get a book out on schedule, when half the pages are single-panel monsters with one figure on a boring background.

Of all the interviews with Golden Age writers and artists I've seen, there's one important question I wish I could see answered (so interviewers, take note, if you stumble across any of these aging guys):  What do they think of the fact that what for them was busywork to pay the bills until they got hired someplace "real" is now a target profession?  I mean, how might Dick Wood have felt to know that, one day, people would go to school in hopes of one day having his horrible little job?  And why didn't anybody ask?

And actually, I like Naydel's work.  It's a little more stylized than most, but once you "key in" to what he does, it has an energy you don't usually see in comics, even today.  The figures seem "live," rather than standing around posed.

[phabox]

No doubt about it many of todays 'professionals' could learn a lot from studying the work in many of the comics on view here.

Tight compact stories filled with action and humor with a begining, middle AND an end often told in as little as six pages ( even LESS sometimes !) what more could anyone ask ?

Also while i'm here let me add ANOTHER name to my short list of pencil weilding ladies of the 1940's;

JILL ELGIN, who drew of of the best 'dressed'  Nurse's of the War years.


-Nigel

[narfstar]

And Ramona Petranude(sp)

[Mr. Izaj]

 I'd be the first to admit that I'm not a fan of Martin Naydel's superhero work either. I still wince a little looking at how terrible his Justice Society of America pages look. Although Everett Hibbard and Joe Gallagher weren't on the level of Jack Burnley, thay at least managed to turn out some decent comics pages. While on the other hand, Naydel's work seemed too cartooney for a superhero strip.

Another artist I felt was ill suited for a superhero strip was George Storm. Looking at his Hangman work, he was capable of some great layouts. But his figure work came off as somewhat of a poor imation of Bob Kane's work on Batman at the time. Good thing that Messrs. Lucey, Novick, Cassone, and Fujitani were waiting in the wings to take over the feature.

[narfstar]

Paul Reinman is one who turned in some good work in the GA but had to hack out some pretty crappy stuff for the Archie SA hero line.  Mike Sekowsky's JLA looked warped but he turned out some beautiful Wonder Woman.  My interests and tastes vary so much.  Some of those that did not do well in comics made a lot more money with commercial art while some of the best comic book artist could not.  Different strokes for different folkes

[bchat]

Fletcher Hanks is by far my favorite of the "terrible artists".  For some strange reason I enjoy looking at his cookie-cutter faces and stiff poses, not to mention the bizarre violence he threw into every feature I've seen him draw.

It's no surprise to me that many artists of that time period approached comics as "just another job" and as probably a more enjoyable way to make money than digging ditches or working in the steel factory.  As with all such things, when someone is doing something simply to make money, you have people who take pride in their work, do their best and challenge themselves, and people who only "go through the motions" and do the least they need to in order to get paid.

It's a shame that most artists of today haven't had that same experience of working to put food in their stomachs, and that the comic companies of today allow the writers and artists to dictate when the next issue will appear, but then again, not everyone can be Jack Kirby and crank-out a book every week.

[John C]

Mike Sekowsky's JLA looked warped but he turned out some beautiful Wonder Woman.

When I first looked at the two (and, by the way, Sekowsky wrote and pencilled most of the Wonder Woman run!), I couldn't reconcile them, either.  Then someone pointed out that Joe Giella was the JLA inker, and all his figures look like chubby old men.  So Mike was definitely the genius.

And even in JLA, look at the motion in his art.  You can see where Superman is shifting his weight in flight, and the pressure in Batman's legs.  I don't think I've ever seen another artist do that so consistently.

[Mr. Izaj]

  Some fans around the time Mike Sekowsky was doing Justice League of America felt the lack of gracefulness his heroes had added to the charm of his work. I felt that Sekowsky's best work came whan he was teamed with inkers Bernard Sachs and Frank Giacia (both on Justice League). But when Sid Green began inking his pencils, I thought his work went downhill. Then again, I lean more towards the work of Sekowsky's sucessor on the strip, Dick Dillin.

[misappear]

Hug a Hack?  Gotta be John Forte for me.  Those Legion stories in the early 1960's warm the coggles and my memory does a happy dance.  Perfectly rendered figures, stiff as a board.  Finding him illustrating some ACGs was quite a bonus.  I wonder if he's still with us?

--Dave

[phabox]

Sadly John Forte died back in 1965 half way though doing a 'Legion of Super-Heroes' story for Adventure Comics.

Someone else, may have been Shelly Moldoff had to step in to finish that story then the assignment was handed to Curt Swan.

I was only a kid back then but even at that young age I thought that Forte drew some VERY sexy looking gals, especially given the restrictions of the CCA, Dream Girl and Light (ning) Lass were but a couple of the long legged Legion Lovelys first drawn by him.

Another thing about Forte's art static as it may have been it was always detailed and you could always so what was going on.

Another artist of slightly more recent times who never had any kind of fan following to speak of was Don Heck, who also knew how to draw a pretty woman if nothing else  .

-Nigel

[kozmo]

I'll second the love for Don Heck.  I've read some recent postings/articles that posit that his name being so close to Hack (and not being Kirby or Ditko while at 60's Marvel) led to the negative reputation that he had.  At the time, I vastly preferred his Iron Man to Gene Colan's. it's practically heresy to say this out loud, but I never felt that Colan worked well in hero stuff like Iron Man -- he was horror/thriller all the way.  Don Heck really pulled out the soap opera element of Iron Man -- his normal people were very well drawn, and his Pepper Potts was hot.  it was the hero element where he had problems, and that is a problem in superhero work.

and then when I began to find and read some of Heck's GA work, wow!  Those famous headshot covers alone should pull his reputation up from the gutters.

Now here's my new name to throw out: Rueben Moreira -- he gets ignored because his work was mainly in the DC non-hero anthologies, but it's strong, strong figure work.

[OtherEric]

It's interesting, I see people who I don't even remotely consider qualifying as hacks getting mentioned here.  Forte, as much as I enjoy his LSH work I can see being called one even if I disagree- Stiff is an understatement.  But Heck and Sekowsky?  No way either of them deserve that label.

Sekowsky, I admit, is the sort of artist who grows on you as you see more of his work.  Mark Evanier tells a story about how he eventually put a "take a number" board outside his work area, which said "line forms here to tell me how much you used to hate my work and how much you love it now" or something similar.

[John C]

Hacks are the people who take the job because it's a job.  They're not the prissy "artistes" that blight the industry today, and that includes (almost) all the Golden and Silver Age artists.  They didn't want to work in comics and most used pseudonyms or anonymity because the job was embarassing.  They took the jobs, though, to pay the rent until an advertising company picked them up.  They did superhero, horror, romance, and everything in between and beyond because that's what the boss needed.

Hacks are the heroes of EVERY industry, because they make sure the product gets out the door.  It's the artsy-fartsy sorts and the engineers of the world who try to turn that into an offensive term, so don't fall for the propaganda.

Sure, I'm being a little over the top, but that's what Nigel was referring to (or at least, I assume so based on his mentioning Gutwirth).  As I said earlier in the exchange, I wish we had more hacks in the industry today, who could churn out competant work that helped tell a story, rather than plod over muddy splash pages with glaring anatomical problems.

[phabox]

Sure that why I started this thread to begin with, to CELEBRATE the work of the Hacks, the true unsung heroes of the comic book industry.

-Nigel

[narfstar]

Fletcher Hanks would probably not be consider a hack today but a major prima dona.  His over the top anatomy is common today.  But his work has more charm than the prima donas of today.

[darkmark]

I will DEFINITELY second the good appraisal of Don Heck.  He was a very talented guy who got bumrapped by Gary Groth in the infamous Harlan Ellison interview.  John Forte was fun, as was Joe (Martian Manhunter) Certa, George Tuska (whose best work by far was in the Forties), and Bob Brown, who showed what he could do when he started working on Superboy and Batman.  Well, so much for that. 

[Mr. Izaj]

  Looking at Don Heck's work, the only reason he got such a bum rap was due to his lack of polish when compared to say Kirby or Ditko. Heck's rough-around-the-edges style worked perfectly on certain genres, in particular Westerns (he was a regular contributor to the Kid Colt; Outlaw strip). In the superhero genre, his work was hurt by the fact he wasn't often teamed with a good inker who was more-than-able to polish up the rough edges. When he was teamed with a really good inker that could polish the rough edges, he showed he was amuch better penciler than people gave him credit for. Cases in point would be his artwork on both Spider-Man Special #3 (where he was inked by John Romita, Sr.) and Avengers Special #1 (where he was inked by George Roussos).

I personally felt that Bob Brown never got the recognition he deserved in his lifetime. And I'm a serious fan of his work on such strips as The Avengers, Daredevil, Batman, and Challengers of the Unknown. And the only reason he was overlooked was due to the attention paid to the "superstar" artists who either came before and/or after his tenure on each of those features.

  Another artist I think never got the recognition he deserved was Dick Dillin. And If you were a regular reader of Justice League of America during the 1970's like I was, you knew how good of an artist he was. And those who were fans of his work on Blackhawk would also testify to how good he was as well.

[bchat]

Fletcher Hanks would probably not be consider a hack today but a major prima dona.  His over the top anatomy is common today.  But his work has more charm than the prima donas of today.

I wouldn't consider Fletcher Hanks a "prima donna", as that phrase insinuates that the man had talent and style that made him a hot commodity, where he could pick and choose what he wanted to work on.  Considering the features he did and the short amount of time he was in the comic industry, calling him a "prima donna" is a stretch.

I don't see where he ever drew "over-the-top anatomy", but I do see stiff figure drawing and weak, sometimes clumsy, page design.  I see a guy who took short-cuts with drawing faces and in some cases entire figures (the "cookie-cutter" approach) and kept each panel simple with sparse backgrounds while hardly ever drawing more than a half-dozen or so pages for any one story.  It's obvious that he did all of those things so that the work would get done faster and he'ld get his money .... hence my calling him a "hack".

[narfstar]

What I was saying was that in todays comics he could have marketed himself being a prima dona not that he was at the time.  His idiosyncracies he could call artistic expression and demand big bucks.  I was making fun of some of todays trends

[bchat]

His idiosyncracies he could call artistic expression and demand big bucks.

I'ld hardly call knocking your kids down a flight of stairs in a drunken rage, resulting in injuries that take years to recover from, an "idiosyncracy".

[narfstar]

Calm down I was only talking about his art not his personal life.  Obviosly his personality came out in his stories.

[Palooka slim]

Vince Coletta ,How did this guy get so many inking assignments? he was either reliable or a nice guy. i've read that he was a good romance artist but ive never seen any of that stuff . anybody a fan of his?