Friday, June 10, 2016


In the 1950s the Maxwell Paper company commissioned a series of paintings by famous illustrators showing the process for creating advertising art.  The series is a great archaeological record of a long dead world. 

The series was called "Partners in Productive Advertising."  It gave each illustrator the opportunity to show his (yes, they were all male) interpretation of a key man (yes, they were all male except for the pretty model) in the creation of an ad.  In a few short years, this world would evolve into the glamorous, lucrative world of Mad Men.  Art directors would take off their ties and start wearing Nehru jackets.  But in the 1950s the advertising world was more down to earth and functional.

Illustrator Steven Dohanos shows us the busy Account Executive dealing with the client. 

Austin Briggs shows us the Advertising Manager  ("[B]ehind that frown lies a battleground where conflicting loyalties temper every decision.")


 Al Dorne shows us the copy writer trying to come up with an original idea for the ad:

 Al Parker depicts the artist painting the ad (although the artist is largely obscured behind a drawing board and a pretty girl):

Robert Fawcett shows us the Art Director enthusiastically reviewing the work of the artist:


With the illustration completed and approved,  John Atherton shows us the Production Manager jumping into action to implement the ad:

Finally, Peter Helck (who was always more comfortable painting machines than people) shows us the printer:

There we have it-- seven different treatments by seven famous illustrators of the day.  Today the advertising industry has changed; the technology and clothing in these pictures seem laughable to us, and the process seems cumbersome. 

But no matter how obsolete these pictures seem, there are some timeless elements that remain relevant.  For example, no matter what the era we can still tell when an artist has faked his way through a picture:


Dorne took that face off some convenient shelf and faked the foreshortening of that figure. Dorne's pencil-to-the-brow pose is a dopey way of showing creative thinking.  That muddy swamp of colors on the desk reflects poor planning in any era.

Telephones were still fairly primitive in Dorne's day, but that didn't stop Dorne from phoning it in.

Contrast Dorne's contribution with Fawcett's:

The tired, jaded expression on the Art Director's face is clever and revealing (as is his bad tie).  Fawcett could've taken Dorne's lazy way out, but Fawcett saw an opportunity to do something interesting with expressions and took full advantage of it.  

Most of all, notice the structural integrity of Fawcett's picture-- the overlapping orthogonal shapes and angles that seem like a random mess on a busy desk, but elegantly convey the architecture of the scene:

No matter how old fashioned the advertising jobs and technologies and haircuts depicted in these pictures may seem, we can still look at these pictures and distinguish quality from fakes, as bright as day.

Today's lesson comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson:  "The excellent is new forever."

(Many thanks to my friend Nick Meglin for the tearsheets for the Maxwell Paper Company series.)



xopxe said...

It's actually strange... The "Art Director" is clearly a standout. But the rest are actually pretty weak all by themselves, I think. The account executive has that amateurishly drawn woman, and the combination of flat figures and the street perspective makes it look phony. In the Advertising Manager piece there is nothing going on. The most interesting part is trying to guess what is the painting lying on the desk, and who left these post-its or whatever on the left. Someone who thought the desk there was too empty but could not think of anything better, I suppose. The Copywriter has strange perspectives all around. And so on.

MORAN said...

The Atherton is the only one that looks modern.

Donald Pittenger said...

I have seen some of those illustrations reproduced elsewhere, not realizing (or having forgotten, perhaps) their original context. Thanks for putting this on the record.

By the way ... I, a man of questionable taste, kinda like the Al Parker and think John Atherton should've stuck to painting Post cover busts of Ben Franklin.

Anonymous said...

It seems like Fawcett was inspired by Degas:

David Apatoff said...

xopxe-- These illustrators were among the most successful, highest paid illustrators of their day. This was a choice assignment, with a lot of editorial freedom. Yet, I agree that most of these images were not their best work. I've never been a big fan of Dohanos-- he had a sharper realism than Rockwell but lacked Rockwell's imagination and magic. I like the Account Executive mainly for its 1950s heavy handed, staged mood. When it comes to Briggs' Advertising Manager, I'm a little more partial than you are. It's interesting how that painting lying on the Advertising Manager's desk is left abstract, yet we can tell its perspective is perfect. I'm a big fan of Al Parker and this is a very well known piece by him, but it is not my favorite. Perhaps it's so famous because of the pretty girl. In those days, bikinis were still sensational. Artists like Helck were capable of excellent work but his painting of the printer leaves me underwhelmed.

MORAN-- Atherton was a leader in the movement away from realism toward design. He was very influential in his day, but was later supplanted by artists who took his approach further.

Donald Pittenger-- This whole series got a lot of circulation in the 50s. Eventually the Maxwell name dropped off and the art was re-published by itself. The Parker illustration which you like, was used as an ad for the Famous Artists School. I guess they figured they'd attract a lot of male students who wanted to draw girls in bikinis all day.

Anonymous-- Degas was a favorite of many illustrators (although more for his color). Bernie Fuchs said he admired Degas the most.

Tom said...

David where they all told to use the same color scheme for the paintings?

Anonymous said...

Mentioning Degas, I meant to say the Fawcett might have been doing something like a direct parody of the Degas portrait of Duranty, reversed, with a same hand to the face gesture, but the face changed from focused to bored, while also featuring a similar pile of books and ink. Perhaps he was contrasting the sharp judgement of an earlier era with the inevitable decline of his own.

David Apatoff said...

Tom-- No, but then again this was a common 1950s palette. Most bright colors weren't invented until the 1960s. (

kev ferrara said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kev ferrara said...

I thought the Dorne was excellent. I love the cluttered desk, the exaggerated perspective seems fine, and I wouldn't criticize the coloring unless I saw the original. Although it looks fine to me as is. The one thing I dislike about it is the painting hung at right on the wall. Its perspective seems wonky to me.

I like the Fawcett too, particularly the excellent drawing of the Art Director. But I'm bothered by that open box lid that seems like it would obscure the Art Director's view of the lower right of the displayed piece (lower right from the AD's vantage point, I mean.) Then again, maybe the held piece is supposed to be perched on top of some cabinet or something in the foreground so it would be high enough for the AD to see over the opened lid of that box? But the held picture doesn't separate enough from the opened box in front of it to give the proper sense of space between the two elements. I think because the top edge of the orange graphis upon which it sits is stuck by a tangent with the nexus point of the L shape of the open lid. So rather than separating in space, the depth planes are binding together and creating confusion. The lower left books also seem to rest on the brown table in front of them, also compromising the sense of depth.

I like Fawcett's idea of including all those bright modernist graphic mags, plus the picasso looking piece at top center, to contrast with the dull green Victorian-lettered Whatman illustration board backing the proffered piece. This subtly specifies just why the displayed work is so depressing to the AD. A great artistic thought, beautifully expressed by Fawcett.

The books at lower left, however, seem a late addition, and are not very well thought out. Not just because they seem to attach to the brown table in front of them, but also because they imply that the gray cabinet upon which all the foreground graphic literature sits is curved, which would be quite a strange bit of furniture, requiring justification.

Also that opened box is on that brown table, but I can't tell whether the table's surface is coming toward us, or whether it is angled down, because it melts into the shade side of the opened box which is clearly down-angled. So if the table surface is supposed to be coming toward us, the shade side of the box is creating an optical illusion/duality with it.

I don't think Fawcett was compromising the depth on purpose, as a meta effect, to reinforce the modernist idea. If he was, the idea is indistinguishable from mistake.

Anonymous said...

The only real problem with the Dorne is the direct line from the leg into the heel of the shoe.

Wendy said...

I think the Dorne one is by far the best of a very bland bunch of images.

Laurence John said...

i agree that these are a very uninspired bunch. they almost illustrate (with the obvious exception of the Atherton) how attempts to be 'realistic' can turn out laboured and wooden.

i can imagine a sparer, more cartoony stye - such as that of the brilliant Harry Beckhoff - breathing some fresh air into these scenarios.

Paul Sullivan said...

I remember seeing this series some time during the 50s. I believe I saw the illustrations as a calendar, well after they were used for Maxwell Paper ad series. Even as a kid, I thought these illustrations were anything but the best efforts from these top illustrators.

I have to agree with most of you that Fawcett's painting is probably the best of the bunch. As Kev pointed out, there are some composition issues in the picture. However, I wouldn't dig too deep into the symbology of some of the elements. "Graphis Annual" was the "hot dog" book through all those years and was a must in every AD's office. The dull color and dark value of the back of the illustration being presented helps identify it as being something less than what was expected. However, Whatman board was one of the most preferred working surfaces for illustration. It again adds a touch of reality to the picture. I wish we still had some Whatman around.

Originally, I thought that the general subject matter was partially to blame for this group of dull illustrations. Yet, it was only about six years later that Austin Briggs did his extremely successful series for Advertising Age. The concept of the Ad Age series was much better but the illustrations involved similar subjects as this Maxwell series.

David Apatoff said...

Kev Ferrara, Anonymous and Wendy-- I am genuinely glad that people are finding merit in the Dorne illustration that has escaped my eyes. I'm normally a fan of Dorne's and even helped write a book about him.

Kev, perhaps you can help me with the following: when you refer to "exaggerated perspective" are you referring to that pile of documents (underneath the eyeglasses) that seem to have a vanishing point different from everything else in the picture? Or the perspective on the feet that appear to be amputated from the legs? Or the angle on that nonsensical L shape of the desk, designed to hold all the theatrical props Dorne wanted, but which could not exist in the real world? Does it bother you that there seem to be 14 different light sources in this picture, none of which is the only visible light source (the window)? Some unseen light source from the left creates that shadow of a pencil on the copy writer's face, yet does not illuminate the back of the hand holding the pencil, or the left side of the box of Zip which is in complete darkness. There's also an unseen light source coming from the front, enough to illuminate the cans on his desk and presumably the copy writer's face (which would otherwise be back lit against the window) but not enough to illuminate the soles of his shoes or cast the shadow on his glasses. I'm not suggesting that technical rules should be followed for the sake of technical correctness, but I do think that the values on that desk are like soup because Dorne failed to respect some fundamental rules. If he wanted to adopt a different set of rules and draw like Atherton or Marc Chagall, then I would judge him by those other rules. But he didn't. (By the way, the face of the copy writer strikes me as the kind of face that Curt Swan might draw on a night when he was racing to make deadline.)

Kev, I think you raise a good point about that box lid in front of the artist's presentation to the art director. Either it makes no sense or its a manifestation of the art director's disdain for the artist and his (the art director's) job.

Laurence John-- I agree that, with the exception of the Atherton, Maxwell chose a very homogeneous group of artists. A little Harry Beckhoff, or some other diverse illustrators, would have made for a more snappy presentation. I guess we'd say that the Maxwell Art Director didn't do his job.

kev ferrara said...

Kev, perhaps you can help me with the following: when you say "exaggerated perspective" are you referring to that pile of picayune overcritical nitpicking lint gathering overdetermined snarky yammering blabber I've just written? (By the way, that face strikes me as the kind of face that Curt Swan might draw on a night when they were trying to make deadline.)

The functional artistic effect is clutter. When you get over subscribed to the linear presentation of Fawcett, where every thought prances Astair-like to the eye, sometimes one can go a little Art-blind and miss the general for the want of a jot. If you look too hard, everything goes to atoms. That was my point.

Also, you need to see a Curtswannologist, because your Banalogizer is overexpressing absurdulin.

you raise a good point about that box lid in front of the artist's presentation to the art director. Either it makes no sense or its a manifestation of the art director's disdain for the artist and his (the art director's) job.

I'll stand by what I previous wrote, which I think explains the issue (bad tangents) quite well.

xopxe said...

And the Copy Writer's typewriter is also completely off. There are two very obviously misdrawn objects in that picture, no way around that. Also, could it be it was going for humor with that goofy face, and we (I?) just can't read it now? In any case, the Art Director is clearly funny with that hidden chin, and you can see his train of thought is completely alien to the artist's. To the point he isn't even in the picture.

And then there's Helck's impossible architecture.

David Apatoff said...

Kev Ferrara-- Bemelmans or Blechman or Lynda Barry or William Steig are free to portray clutter with an impressionistic jumble of lines. I love it when they do. But here Dorne proudly tells us that this is a nitpicking picture: "I shall draw every individual match in the matchbook as well as the tiny hinges on those eye glasses." 'Tis not me, my liege, who picks the nits.

When an artist sets out, as Dorne did here, to letter the text on individual cans, to paint the wood grain on that book /chest, to draw and make perfect geometric circles on the lids of the tin cans then the artist has set a standard for viewers, and is not free to change it without explanation. That means he cannot say, "Oh, but I am going to turn that stack of documents into a triangle as if there's a black hole behind the desk sucking it in, and while I'm at it I'm going to disconnect those feet from their legs." To quote a wise sage, " If he was, the idea is indistinguishable from mistake."

As for Curt Swan, if you want to substitute another cartoonist who draws simplistic, lantern jawed, symmetrically handsome faces, I would not object. Mike Sekowsky, maybe? Or Don Heck?

Paul Sullivan said...

Here's an off the wall thought:

I have to wonder if these guys were pushed into doing illustrations for this series at a fraction of their going rate—or less. Printed on these ads is a four line plug for the Famous Artists Course to the right of the headline in about 10 pt. type. This was at a time when the Famous Artists School was doing some heavy-duty promotion. Al may have cooked up a deal.

The ads were for Maxwell Offset, a paper created for offset printing. If I am correct these ads were pre-printed magazine ad inserts on Maxwell Offset paper rather than printed as standard run of-press. At the bottom of the ads is a line reading, "This a sample of Maxwell Offset—Substance 80".

There are several reasons for the rather dull look of the color. One reason may be quality of offset printing the time. I could be the color separations but at least a couple of these guys were using colored inks the same way they did in the 40s. Dorne and Fawcett both used black as the first color in a glazing process. The work of Dahanos never was real colorful.

Tom said...

It sure seems like they all are using color schemes that emerge out of green and orange/red.

I don't see much of a problem with the open box in the Fawcett drawing and I don't see any tangents. Hard to believe an artist of Fawcett's capability would draw two objects that would share the same edge. The picture that is being held is not prependicular to the ground its titled back toward the artist like a computer screen on a laptop.

Plus all the books point to the art director, if fact everything circles or orbits around him like the art director is the center of a solar system. I kinda feel like he would like to be out on the golf course instead. The work world is in front of him but what is really in the back of his mind is behind him.

I like Parker's red sleeve and green tape dispenser it really brings your eye to the hand and the brush of the painter. Also the little bit of red he exposes on his shirt collar brings you back to the mind of the artist.

I like the Briggs painting too as the man in the blue suits feels like some who still walks the streets of New York today.

David I would be curious to hear how you got interested in these artists as most of them where not household names the last 30 years. It might make for an interesting post.

Sean Farrell said...

It's hard to imagine an art director being so entirely disappointed with an illustration by Robert Fawcett, but I'm guessing he encountered an art director or two feigning their role as a great sage of authoritative misery and he may have found such an expression unforgettable. When I saw his depicted art director, I was reminded of some moments when my own efforts were met with such miserable and half dead expressions and they remain quite memorable and even charming given that somehow I survived them. I suspect Fawcett was enjoying a private joke at the expense of such “genius”. I love how much is expressed by the artist's hands holding the matted picture which are to enthusiasm as the expression is to such lifeless disappointment. There is a play between the old lettering on the back of the illustration board and the contemporary graphis magazine and I suspect such is part of the humor. Yes, the Picasso-like image at the center top would be part of the subtle humor too, but that's just my take on the image.

Sean Farrell said...

The bottle of aspirin is another cue the art director is a suffering hero. The oversized looking phone next to the bottle tells us that talking on the phone is much of what this guy really does and the golf clubs tells us more. The orderly and nearly undisturbed art supplies next to the more animated cigarette butts in the ash tray are also talking to us.

Even if there is no artist/art director subversive commentary going on as I suspect, the image is a great example of how to create space. Some liberties taken with the bottles of ink turning the surface plane of the table, the slumping man, tie and golf bag strap with paper curled on the back wall are all very expressive. There are enough twists and quirks in the image to keep it interesting for a long time. Thanks for sharing it David. The other mages are good too, but you highlighted the best one and made a good argument for your love of Robert Fawcett.

chris bennett said...

I thought the Al Parker was the best. The emerging red-cuffed hand pinking the water as it washes the brush while the other hand grips the drawing board. Model, artist and artwork all framed by that beautiful luminous grey matter of the background.

David Apatoff said...

xopxe-- I hadn't considered it, but that goofy face on the copy writer could well have been an in joke-- either making fun of a copy writer he knew, or perhaps placing someone he knew in an ad. It does seem out of place as a regular copy writer's face.

Paul Sullivan-- You'd think if Maxwell Paper was trying to show off a paper created for offset printing, they would want sharper reproduction and better color than what we see here.

Similarly, I don't know if the Famous Artists School founders (who always had an abundance of full paying jobs) offered a special cut rate deal for these illustrations but wouldn't it defeat the promotional purpose if they did a slipshod job? Still, it's an interesting thought. I suppose the best argument against that explanation is that Dorne was a hard nosed businessman who always found a way to make a profit from everything he touched. He never seemed to give discounts to anyone.

Tom-- It's nice of you to ask. I encountered these artists by following the same string that many others did. I loved illustrated children's books as a boy(especially the work of N.C. Wyeth, Maxfield Parrish and Howard Pyle) and each morning newspaper brought a fresh gallery of pen and ink work by Leonard Starr, Stan Drake, Alex Kotzky and others. Before I could read I studied their drawings and tried to make sense of their plots. For some reason the pictures just thrilled me. From there I began collecting comic books and clipping magazine illustrations I liked by Bernie Fuchs, Bob Peak and others, and worked my way back to their influences. But I really lucked out by becoming friends with cartoonists and illustrators who had compiled huge filing cabinets of reference illustrations from the 50s, 60s and 70s. When they retired, nobody else wanted those collections but I said, "I do." It didn't take me long to single out the artists whose work really spoke to me.

David Apatoff said...

Chris Bennett and Tom-- Thanks for pointing out elements of the Parker that had escaped me, and which only reinforce my great admiration for Parker. In a painting with an otherwise muted palette, that tomato red cuff and the pink water do indeed remind us that the real action is with the hand with the brush, and not the girl's butt in the foreground. The Parker composition is less crowded but more sophisticated than most of the others. Always a mistake to underestimate Parker.

Sean Farrell-- Thanks for sharing some fun (and some excruciating) experiences to which I suspect we all can relate. There are legends about Fawcett's relationships with art directors-- for example, when Fawcett did a full illustration of Napoleon, the art director instructed Fawcett to change the face to make it more heroic (perhaps like Dorne's copy writer). Fawcett not only refused to make the change (which he said would wreck the illustration, as any idiot could see) but he took his illustration back and kept it for himself, leaving the art director to scramble for a replacement.

Of course, many of the great innovative illustrators had run in with art directors. When Bernie Fuchs was painting car illustrations in Detroit, he changed the standard formula of having the car front and center, surrounded by adoring women in evening gowns. He put the car in the background, integrated into a happy everyday lifestyle painting. When an art director saw what Fuchs had done, he tossed the illustration over his shoulder onto the floor and scolded the account executive, "Your boy is a real prima donna." Fuchs refused to buckle under, which is part of what made him Fuchs.

Scott said...

I bought these at the old Garage Flea Market On 23rd Street about 16 years ago and gave them to my Boss as a Christmas Present a few years later.The series is printed on a celluloid wrapped and tapered metal frames.Just saw this post yesterday and I was thrilled to stumble across it quite by accident.He had custom built frames to hang them and are showcased at our current office in the Flatiron District.Here is the old post we did on a now defunct blog back in April 7, 2009

Madtabolism said...

I bought these at the old Garage Flea Market On 23rd Street about 16 years ago and gave them to my Boss as a Christmas Present a few years later.The series is printed on a celluloid wrapped and tapered metal frames.Just saw this post yesterday and I was thrilled to stumble across it quite by accident.He had custom built frames to hang them and are showcased at our current office in the Flatiron District.Here is the old post we did on a now defunct blog back in April 7, 2009

Sean Farrell said...

They are fantastic stories and have confirmed my suspicions. We owe more to those illustrators than they get credit for. It's a shame Fawcett never wrote the accompanying book, Mastering Inconsolable Misery and Emotional Blackmail. On top of improving labor-management relations, it would have saved a lot of marriages and won the Nobel Peace Prize. They were of a different world and thanks for reminding us.

Paul Sullivan said...

I agree with you. As you said, "You'd think if Maxwell Paper was trying to show off a paper created for offset printing, they would want sharper reproduction and better color than what we see here." And I might add, you would think that they would want the best work of these illustrators.

I am having to speculate here. However, it looks like we are seeing scans of the original ads. As the line of copy at the base of each of the ads testifies, the ads were printed on Maxwell Offset ready to be used as magazine inserts. That means we are looking at paper and ink that is about 60 years old. Also, it was not until the late 50s that large run offset techniques were perfected. Methods of drum scanning and quality of transparencies followed a similar time table. Added to this is that a couple of these illustrators—Dorne and Fawcett—were using black as a first layer of what amounted to a glazing technique.

Regarding the use of these somewhat dull illustrations to sell Maxwell Offset. Maxwell was selling offset printing technology as much as it was its paper. This sales pitch was being made to the printing and advertising industry. The illustrators used were the stars of their time and their names alone was tantamount to endorsement.

Regarding Al Dorne being a hard nosed businessman, again—from everything I know—I have to agree with you. My comment was pure speculation. However, when you consider the fact that the Famous Artist School was given a four line plug in the middle of each ad, my thoughts about a deal isn't that far off the wall. Also, each one of these illustrators was an investor in the school and made a considerable return from its profits. Plus, there is the fact that the school made extensive use of several of the illustrations. The Parker illustration was used in FA ads for years. If I remember correctly, the Fawcett illustration was used in the FA course.—and the preliminary drawing for Dorne's illustration was either in the revised course or literature by FA.

David Apatoff said...

Scott /Madtabolism-- Thanks for the link. It turns out that you have one illustration that I don't (Harold von Schmidt's "the client") and I have one you're missing (Atherton's "production manager"). I'm sorry to say that, while I admire von Schmidt very much, I find his depiction of "the client" as disappointing as some of the other pictures in this series.

Sean Farrell-- I've heard so many hilarious stories about the hard drinking, two fisted illustrators of that era. I went around and interviewed as many of them (or their spouses) as I could, but unfortunately that window has pretty much closed now.

Paul Sullivan-- It sounds like you really know your illustrators (and your FA materials). Your timing sounds right to me, as does the re-use of these materials. I will say, however, that I've seen a lot of clear, bright, high resolution color printing in magazines going back to the 1930s. Even if "it was not until the late 50s that large run offset techniques were perfected," Esquire magazine and other high budget publications made the reproduction in these Maxwell advertisements look sick.

Madtabolism said...

Thank You David,
If you are ever in the Neighborhood and interested to take a closer look at these display pieces
let me know.I am a advertising Art Studio Manager working with Illustrators for 23 years.
We still have an on site "Bullpen" we pride ourselves in.
Scott Stein
Head of Operations - Art
48 West 25th Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10010
T: 212.692.9200, x775

Paul Sullivan said...


Once again I have to agree with you. I've also seen a lot of sharp color printing in popular magazines from the 1930s. Chances are all of it was gravure printing. This was the best method of high volume color printing at that time. As a high school kid in the early 50s, I used to study the illustrations of the Saturday Evening Post and Colliers from the late 1920s, 30s and 40s that were saved in bound editions at our main library. During those years, many publications used limited color on the inside pages printing them using letterpress methods. And the covers were printed in full color using gravure. Some featured a limited full color—based on the color advertising. Some featured color inserts within the magazine printed using gravure.

By the very early 50s offset printing became perfected and presses were developed for high volume runs. However, it still had to sell itself to the advertising and publishing industry. About this same time David Ogilvy was analyzing the advertising business using surveys. He found that a color ad had twice the readership of one that was black and white. Suddenly advertisers were demanding more color pages. The big advantage of offset color printing was that it cost less than gravure. Regardless, switching to offset meant a large investment in a new presses built for high speed offset printing. Also offset had to prove that it could produce a good product—something the big advertisers demanded.

Enter Maxwell Paper: They had developed a paper designed for high speed offset printing. To show it off, their ads were pre-printed on their paper and inserted into magazines focusing on their target market. At the bottom of each ad is the line, "This a Sample of Maxwell Offset—Substance 80." Pre-printed inserts were a common method of advertising as opposed to run of press.

I can't tell you why these ads do not look as sharp as they should. I am not a printing expert but as an art director I have been responsible for a lot of printing. I'm guessing but it could be because we are looking at scans of 60 year old ads. It could be that the illustrations were not that hot to begin with. The problem might be with the separations. As a group they look pretty flat. Most likely it is a combination of things.

By the way—about this same time, Mr. Ogilvy's surveys found that people believed a photo more that an illustration. That was the very beginning of the end for illustration as the dominate method of visual presentation in advertising.

karlotta said...

Отличные иллюстрации - занимательные и познавательные - для историка этой отрасли. Я работала в этой сфере - всё так знакомо.

Excellent illustrations - Entertaining and informative - the historian of the industry. I have worked in this area - all of this so familiar.

kev ferrara said...

As for Curt Swan, if you want to substitute another cartoonist who draws simplistic, lantern jawed, symmetrically handsome faces, I would not object.

See your optometrist.

jackblog said...

Dear David, what a find! I am very keen to talk to you about the Maxwell Paper paintings for some research I'm undertaking. Please could you email me as soon as feasible so I can discuss the copyright of the images and linking to your blog? Many thanks, Jackie

David Apatoff said...

jackblog-- There doesn't seem to be an email address on your link, but you can write me at