This is a 1933 political cartoon by Vaughn Shoemaker. It appeared in the Chicago Daily News, which went defunct many years ago:
Look how smart this drawing is. Shoemaker understands the architecture of a rowboat and knows that the keel would make it tilt on dry land. He understands the bone structure of ankles and makes those feet tilt at different angles. He understands how the shoulders would hunch up in this position and he understands how the wrists would curl:
Shoemaker also understands the architecture of a pier. Look at how the boards sag, how the posts in the foreground are stained by the previous waterline, how the posts in the background are mere black shadows to lend structural strength with no distracting details:
 |
| I've never seen a digital tool make marks like this |
Notice how the shadow under the pier is cross hatched to stay lively; this avoids a big black blob in the center of the composition. More importantly, it allows Shoemaker to control the value of the shadow, darkening it as it recedes in the distance:
Notice some of Shoemaker's tactics to keep the drawing lively. He clearly understands how a coil of rope would normally hang, but he twists the end of that rope all around. He understands the anatomy of hands, but he gratuitously lifts that pinky finger to make it more interesting:
Drawing a political cartoon every day, Shoemaker had to work at lightning speed, which meant he had to understand all these lessons before he sat down at the drawing board. He had no time for a field trip to study how a pier is constructed or how a receding waterline leaves marks on the shore. Yet there's a lot of confidence in his thick, fast brush strokes.
Here's my point: In 1933 there were thousands of political cartoonists such as Shoemaker working for thousands of newspapers like the Chicago Daily News. Often these cartoons appeared on the front page, above the fold. Today there are fewer than 40 full time political cartoonists left, and the number of newspapers is rapidly dwindling. Daily newspapers have turned into weekly newspapers, and many of them can no longer afford an editorial cartoonist on the payroll.
Shoemaker was not one of the more famous cartoonists but I think his drawing is noteworthy, so I want to make a point of noting it here.
12 comments:
Take off the labels, and this drawing could easily pass as something from the Marcinelle school (Franquin, Morris, Peyo, Uderzo, etc.) 30 years later.
Those old guys were awesome. There's no editorial cartoonist like that today, but Ramirez is pretty good.
Clearly a deliberate misrepresentation of the beneficence of the crop reduction programme, but a nice drawing.
And unless the ink strokes have been simulated to level of the human stroke (& taking advantage of the artist's lack of fame....but even then, why play golf on a golf-simulator?), nicely drawn.
Bill
Bill-- I have no views on 1933 crop policies, but your "nicely drawn" comment subsumes my entire point. Shoemaker was no genius, but I think this is a dandy drawing by an artist who understood anatomy, perspective, ink, and drew with energy and fun. Maybe one in a thousand in 1933, but what a rarity today.
MORAN-- Agreed. I've written about Ramirez with great admiration, and had the pleasure of meeting him this year. One of about 3 or 4 editorial cartoonists who are upholding the dignity and worth of the profession today.
Anonymous-- I'm always happy when people contribute the names of cartoonists outside the USA, where my knowledge drops off precipitously.
'a dandy drawing'
Perfectly put. It's amazing, for me, seeing those artists whose knowledge was as imbedded as the shaping of letters is for us, and shows in their drawing with the same fluent, quick delivery of writing; deft 'shorthand' in places and acute description in others.
Bill
Delightful cartoon. His style reminds me of Sterrett.
When illustrators could draw and were appreciated . The following is what we get nowadays.
https://www.jesseduquette.com/shop/p/sorrynot-sorry
Never knew there was a “Famous Cartoonist Course.”
https://youtu.be/KRW8PWgsm8g?si=AqfpEzO26QoXgq9m
Online copy:
https://archive.org/details/famous-artists-cartooning-course/mode/2up
"Once there were thousands. Now there are 40." True of many fields. I struggled to convince a friend--a professional free-lance writer, yet--that once there were a dozen specialist science-fiction magazines. (Now there are, I believe, two.) Changes in technology, economics or culture make for hard times for some types of artist--in the broad sense of "art"--and better times for others. What widespread literacy, cheap paper and improved printing technology gave us, radio, television and the Internet are taking away. It's good of you to remind us of the lost world, and it's good that some of the art remains.
Thanks.
> once there were a dozen specialist science-fiction magazines. (Now there are, I believe, two.)
Wikipedia actually lists something like a hundred active Science Fiction "magazines" worldwide, though there are a lot of caveats to that list, especially if you're thinking of magazines that publish stories, not just articles.
Still, you have at least Asimov's, Analog, Fantasy & Science Fiction, and Clarkesworld, which all do print versions, and a bunch of online-only magazines like Uncanny and Apex. Weird Tales also regularly publishes SF stories.
Are any on the 'newsstands'/kiosks etc. ? Just wondering what the situation is in the US. Do any of those you mention have illustrations ? I presume Weird Tales does.
[.......] I think a small but sustainable market exists that would buy an illustrated story periodical, on certain themes, anyway. Certainly if what a lot of the small press book publishers put out is anything to go by.
Post a Comment