tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post5589895319718308918..comments2024-03-28T22:57:07.128-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: ROBERT FAWCETT'S MUSEUM OF MODERN ARTDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-43486099896901245992021-04-30T14:45:56.194-04:002021-04-30T14:45:56.194-04:00"Frazetta commented on his Famous Funnies/Buc...<i>"Frazetta commented on his Famous Funnies/Buck Rogers cover, ' I could criticize some of it for being overdone , what the hell. I was just a kid.' David and Kev , have you ever held the original in your hands? I've never seen a repro that did it justice."</i><br /><br />I haven't held it in my hands, but I did see it framed and displayed on the on the wall at the Society of Illustrators in NYC a couple of years ago. It is, indeed, quite lovely. However, Frazetta did get better later. Contra David, though, I think Frazetta's pen and brush drawings of Tarzan for Canaveral Press are among his most powerful drawings, and I think, on balance, his drawings are better than his paintings. He sometimes used bravura (i.e. flashy) brushwork to obscure careless drawing or minimally rendered areas in his paintings. He couldn't get away with this in his drawings.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-68855037609261788482021-04-27T11:46:48.284-04:002021-04-27T11:46:48.284-04:00Thanks to everyone for such an informative discuss...Thanks to everyone for such an informative discussion, I've learned a lot!Nathan Burneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05454113128644137738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-72403752690234334342021-04-25T19:41:24.477-04:002021-04-25T19:41:24.477-04:00Don Cox-- Thanks for the recommendations, any book...Don Cox-- Thanks for the recommendations, any book simply titled "Line" sounds like my kind of book, and I've ordered it. I have Sullivan's book on The Art of Illustration and enjoyed it.<br /><br />Sean Farrell, Tom and Kev Ferrara-- Thanks for an interesting discussion. Sean, I appreciate your careful eye on this, which pointed out some things I hadn't noted. Whether an illustration uses photo reference or not is of secondary interest to me, but my surmise is that Fawcett used photo reference for the counter with the bars and clutter, and perhaps the man behind the bars, but superimposed / improvised much of the man in front. His left upper arm is too long, his head is too small, and his right arm comes into view at an impossible angle. If a photograph contributes one thing, it's usually getting proportions like that correct. Fawcett drew from the model once a week until the end of his life, and I wouldn't be surprised if he'd said, "I know what an upper arm looks like" and winged it.<br /><br />I agree with Kev that this is far from Fawcett's most careful or ambitious illustration, but I'd also distinguish between being sloppy about the dimensions of some of the limbs and caring about the overall image (and the range of "agitated" marks he was making). This was drawn in an era when plenty of illustrators were already taking liberties with the relative proportions of limbs, and Fawcett's interest late in his career was never winning the trophy for Most Meticulous Anatomy. One of the things that endears Fawcett to me is that even when he is drawing a commercial spot of a <a href="https://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2013/08/one-l0vely-drawing-part-44.html" rel="nofollow">paunchy little nobody sitting at a desk</a> he still goes to town with inventive marks.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-24949625693221508542021-04-24T17:50:30.428-04:002021-04-24T17:50:30.428-04:00I would like to offer a different opinion on this ...<b>I would like to offer a different opinion on this Robert Fawcett drawing</b><br /><br />Those are good observations Sean.<br /><br />I didn't mean to assert that this particular piece was traced, btw. When I talked of tracing, I meant that many working in the scratchy realist line style of the period (and after) were, in fact, simply tracing and then using agitated lines to energize the drawing. I worked in an ad studio that had accumulated years and years of clip art done in that exact style.<br /><br />Anyway, it looks more to me like Fawcett relied on a particular piece of reference for the picture. Mainly because in comparing it to the Fawcetts I've saved on my hard drive, it is a very unsophisticated work both narratively and spatially and even in drawing. That it was only a vignette/spot illo only adds to the belief that it was not imagined and executed in the same way as his best work. Even with the relationships you pointed out, there really isn't all the much going on. <br /><br />In terms of drawing, there is nowhere near this much sloppiness of line in his best work. That the shoulder 'looks weird' and, for example, the glasses of the enshadowed character are all cockeyed... yet the picture is obviously full of accuracy at the figural level... that's also the kind of thing you'd get from rushed purposely-'agitated' work that is highly reliant on reference. When working from a photo, the general or contextual accuracy will concretize the vagueness and supercede minor drawing errors. So the minor drawing bits are sacrificed to the agitated tone, and it doesn't really hurt the picture because the context is pre-ordained and accurate.<br /><br />Contrast that with Henry Pitz, mentioned earlier, who often used the sloppy scratchy/edgy linear style without using reference, and the results were his most dire efforts. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-84741227561497780542021-04-24T17:23:49.305-04:002021-04-24T17:23:49.305-04:00The more you know where your line is and where it ...<b>The more you know where your line is and where it is going the more you will understand what it wants to describe or express.</b><br /><br />All true. <br /><br /><b>But I wasn't saying lines are parallel...</b><br /><br />Sorry, that whole post of mine was puns on the various meanings of the word "line." I didn't mean any of it literally. I thought you were joking by referencing Euclid.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-11776156380418836152021-04-24T14:27:25.770-04:002021-04-24T14:27:25.770-04:00Tom,
I agree with the specific things you said ab...Tom, <br />I agree with the specific things you said about setting up a picture. <br /> <br />Regarding the picture plane, every object has a plum line and is defined by perspective which uses a horizon line, so everything has a vertical and corresponding horizontal. In that sense they’re unavoidable. Some artists use them consciously and others sense them but they’re present even if an artist isn’t overly concerned with them. <br /><br />I was always humbled by a guy I worked with who found so many uses for verticals and horizontals in buildings, trees, figures but also as devices of force. <br /><br />Don’t know what to make of the liberty with the arm but it isn’t landing in its socket. Fawcett’s use of pattern, edges and differences to create and unify space are things that can be learned from painters or teachers, but certain things I’m sure he learned as they emerged through his own drawing. Mainly I felt the drawing was worth a closer look and I’m glad you did too. <br />SeanSean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-42035065766982452412021-04-24T11:33:43.011-04:002021-04-24T11:33:43.011-04:00Well said Sean. That what I was driving at, settin...Well said Sean. That what I was driving at, setting up the whole scene is what takes the real effort. <br /><br />I found the arm of the foreground man awkward too. It bothered me immediately. I could not decide if it was the value contrast between the guy's right forearm or how it lacks the sense of volume that exists in the rest of the picture. It just feels out of sorts. Maybe if Fawcett had exposed the arm's forearm, it might give the whole arm more visual depth while creating an easier transition to the forearm and the hand holding the envelope. But maybe he did it deliberately to direct the eye to the exchange of the envelope, as it is very jarring and eye catching.<br /><br />Kev wrote "...non-euclidian lines are without parallel!"<br /><br />That's what I've heard, not that I know anything about non-Euclidean space/geometry. But I wasn't saying lines are parallel, I was saying to draw a specific line in space it is easier to draw when the line is related to a flat plane, oriented horizontally, vertically or to a profile plane. You may have to use all three when drawing the branch of a tree or the direction of it's cast shadow.:) Or really any line you draw. Your Andrew Loomis example of the functions of line was nice but before a line can "function," in Loomis terms one must determine the line's position and direction in the picture's space. The more you know where your line is and where it is going the more you will understand what it wants to describe or express.<br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-32577369872445892042021-04-23T22:08:31.828-04:002021-04-23T22:08:31.828-04:00David,
I would like to offer a different opinion ...David, <br />I would like to offer a different opinion on this Robert Fawcett drawing which has some very sophisticated stuff going on in it. The wavy lines in the hair are echoed in the hanging papers on our left and immediately behind the head on the right. Each unites the hard perspective graphically to the surface while accentuating the depth and positioning of each in space. <br /><br />The crooked edges above the closet door are doing the same with the marks in the shadows behind the sleeve and the edges (left of the resting elbow) in the foreground where a curve then meets a vertical edge of the countertop that moves up to the figure behind the bars and the hand coming through the bars. To the right of the curve and the vertical is a receding space with a broken edge of shadow and distinctions between the three adds space. <br /><br />The pattern of the shirt is echoed in the safety deposit boxes on the far wall outside the window but also in the bars themselves intersecting with lines on the far wall uniting three different planes in space through similar patterns. The two men, one ominous and in shadow is reciprocated as if in a mirror by the straight guy on our side of the window who looks slightly apprehensive. <br /><br />Something is going on with the space that's also interesting. We are driving into space from left to right along perspective lines, but we’re also being driven in the opposite direction directly into space from the foreground man through the window of bars to and behind the man in shadow. The string of hanging rubber stamps with their variations are helping obscure the man in shadow along with the hanging paper. Placing a finger over the hanging rubber stamps renders the looming man in shadow too imposing.<br /><br />The oversized head of the man behind the window and the awkwardly large upper arm of the foreground man suggests this is not a tracing. Tensegrity is evident in the forces (graphically and spacially) as it was in the Fawcett with the discerning art director a few years back. <br />Sean<br />Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-76172659282992526372021-04-23T17:05:25.742-04:002021-04-23T17:05:25.742-04:00As far as the power of line, I would read Euclid!:...<b>As far as the power of line, I would read Euclid!:) Western art relates the position, and direction of line to parallel lines, which is to say to the orientation of a flat plane.;)</b> <br /><br />:)<br /><br />I don't take cues from queues; I'm drawn to some lines but quite sniffy about others. I prefer crowquil's to crow's feet, ocean liners to lining pockets, and pick-up lines to put-downs, but I'm telling you straight; non-euclidian lines are without parallel!kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-64392092729839562682021-04-23T11:40:15.377-04:002021-04-23T11:40:15.377-04:00Now that sounds good Chris!Now that sounds good Chris!Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-19695078628310089312021-04-23T11:05:34.771-04:002021-04-23T11:05:34.771-04:00As far as the power of line, I would read Euclid!:...As far as the power of line, I would read Euclid!:) Western art relates the position, and direction of line to parallel lines, which is to say to the orientation of a flat plane.;) <br /><br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-74679914816608431212021-04-23T11:00:58.144-04:002021-04-23T11:00:58.144-04:00Tom,
I'm so glad you enjoyed listening to Iai...Tom,<br /><br />I'm so glad you enjoyed listening to Iain McGilchrist. There is new book of his soon to be published called 'The Matter with Matter' and no doubt there will be lots of podcast interviews with him when that happens.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-21094380842013661442021-04-22T15:19:50.282-04:002021-04-22T15:19:50.282-04:00Thanks, Don! Much apprecicated. Thanks, Don! Much apprecicated. Wesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-9681743271988708432021-04-22T08:30:40.766-04:002021-04-22T08:30:40.766-04:00Edmund Sullivan's book "Line", writt...Edmund Sullivan's book "Line", written 100 years a go, is still good.<br /><br />"Pen Drawing Techniques" by Henry Pitz has intelligent discussion of line quality and many examples by a good range of artists. <br /><br />Other good books for examples are "Line Drawing for Reproduction" by Ashley Havinden and Joseph Pennell's big book "Pen Drawing" (there's an excellent Dover Books reprint of a late edition of this). <br /><br />Every illustrator handles the relation between realism, handwriting and ornament in his or her own way.<br /><br />Don CoxDon Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339420519741253080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-3832663075097401222021-04-22T08:28:37.406-04:002021-04-22T08:28:37.406-04:00David wrote
"Even a row of rubber stamps beco...David wrote<br />"Even a row of rubber stamps becomes a small act of anarchy." <br /><br />I like that statement because after Fawcett did the heavy lifting of creating the space for the scene, keeping all the parts in proportion and in proper perspective, why not relax and have a little fun with your mark making. It really shows one that the larger issues of drawing are much more demanding then the details and how dependent the details are upon the larger forms that precede them.<br /><br />The only thing about zooming in on the handling of the ink is it makes the drawing look much more like a doodle then it does in the larger context of the the picture itself where the marks general hold to the surface planes of the forms. <br /><br />As far as Franklin Booth and Hal Foster, don't you think their pictures where meant to be scrutinized by readers who hadn't experience the visual overload of the modern world. I can certainly see someone examining their pictures in all their detail on a lazy summer afternoon. Their pictures seem to invite the viewer to come up close and really examine them, to spend some time with them looking into all the nooks and grannies so to speak. In comparison the Fawcett picture feels a tad more rush, a little more in a hurry. He seems to know his viewer is not going to give his illustration the same kind of attention.<br /><br />Chris thanks for the Ian McGilchrist links. I haven't order the book but I've really enjoyed listening to him on youtube.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-10963263749379994162021-04-22T08:24:46.754-04:002021-04-22T08:24:46.754-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-32613818738771294362021-04-22T06:42:29.843-04:002021-04-22T06:42:29.843-04:00PS:
This is why I said "art is implicit in it...PS:<br />This is why I said "art is implicit in its <i>nature</i>". To be a little more comprehensive; the language that constitutes art is implicit in its nature. <br />The things of the world are explicit in nature, their implicitness depends on us, but in the case of a work of art it is the author.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-62405498147399187232021-04-22T06:14:22.619-04:002021-04-22T06:14:22.619-04:00David wrote:
Yes, but on the other hand, haven...David wrote:<br /><br /><b>Yes, but on the other hand, haven't we seen conceptual elements that aren't "explicit," and that appeal not just to the intellect? I always use Saul Steinberg, the conceptual artist I probably admire the most, as my test when trying to draw such distinctions. Yes, the concept dominates and yes, he comes right out and uses words, or symbols with literal meanings. Yet, there is a whole lot of mystery in what he does, a whole lot that's left implicit, along with lovely watercolor puddles and designs that "touch the senses." Where does Steinberg's kind of conceptual art fit into your view?</b><br /><br />Anything and everything can be implicit of many things. To those not shackled by pathological literal mindedness a fingernail clipping on the floor can imply many stories as to how it might have got there. Even a mote of dust floating in the air, if we wish, can set us off on a whole journey of speculation.<br /><br />But I am making a distinction between implications authored into a work as a means to communicate directed aesthetic meaning relevant to the subject as opposed to an object placed on display in a fine art context whose purpose, and thereby justification, is to encourage as much generalized wool-gathering in the audience as possible. <br /><br />Thus I can stand in front of a diamond-encrusted skull and spin endless silk out of my arse about beauty being only skin deep, diamonds are forever, the richest corpse in the cemetery, the simulacra of make-up, you can't take it with you, beauty is only skin deep, diamonds were this girl's best friend, all that glisters in not old, the emperor's clothes, attractiveness as armour... These implications drifting through my mind are dependent on my imagination and temperamental associations and not constructively directed by the work itself. The implications generated must be towards meaningful purpose for the work to be eligible as a art. <br /><br />If I have missed your point, do you have a Saul Steinberg drawing in mind?chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-61609860132535106812021-04-22T01:51:13.915-04:002021-04-22T01:51:13.915-04:00Frazetta commented on his Famous Funnies/Buck Roge...Frazetta commented on his Famous Funnies/Buck Rogers cover , " I could criticize some of it for being overdone , what the hell . I was just a kid " . David and Kev , have you ever held the original in your hands ? I've never seen a repro that did it justice . I'm not sure if he reassessed it and used some whiteout to eliminate some of the cracks in the rocks , before turning it in , if it would have been an improvement . And I can't imagine another illustrator - Fawcett Fuchs you name them , that if they saw it , would want to try to top it with a version of their own . With whatever his faults were , he was unique .al mcluckiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12725554809221282978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-10621384268930187982021-04-21T21:24:46.108-04:002021-04-21T21:24:46.108-04:00Well, I certainly have learned alot about "li...Well, I certainly have learned alot about "lines". <br /><br />Thanks for the insights. Wesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-61330661771056088172021-04-21T20:57:53.735-04:002021-04-21T20:57:53.735-04:00I think the reason Frazetta comes up a lot in my e...<b>I think the reason Frazetta comes up a lot in my exchanges with you is that I want to use benchmarks that I know you'll recognize and respect.</b><br /><br />I think you know that I recognize and respect thousands of different pen and ink artists. <br /><br />Normally my diagnosis of Fawcett's "active lines" here as superficial and often meaningless in their randomness would be met with arguments against those "accusations" on the merits (or lack thereof.) <br /><br />One would expect responses like: <i>"No, the 'random' agitations are actually meaningful because of X and not at all random because of Y"</i> Or <i>"I don't care if the line quality is random or its application superficial, I like the energetic effect it causes. And that is enough."</i> To that latter tack you could have added a riff on Wes' point, <i>"Imagine how boring the picture would be if the rendering was done straight?!"</i><br /><br />(But, of course, that bit of honesty would quickly second my diagnosis.)<br /><br />Anyway, point being, you elected to deflect; to attack rather than defend. And the target just happened to be the usual. Which, call me crazy, looks to me like you took my diagnosis of Fawcett's lines as 'insults against your guy' which required a response in kind against 'my guy'. What is this, a Brooklyn playground in 1954? <br /><br /><b>They think they can ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY by blurring their artistic choices with three or four or ten lines where one would suffice.</b><br /><br />Respectfully, this is not a great analysis of what Frazetta is doing. Or most other great ink artists who use feathered strokes. Some artists care about textural differences and turning form in particular ways. As well, some appreciate that there's a world of compositional and expressive effects out there to be pursued outside of conventional rendering, outlining per se, or randomly 'energizing lines'. So this is not really a case where diminishing marginal utility applies.<br /><br />It is true that a great technician will now and again flex muscles for the sheer pleasure of it. I rarely find these objectionable, unless its the only thing on the plate.<br /><br /><b>Let me put up some pictures of lines for you to insult in my next post.</b><br /><br />As always, I look forward to all your posts, and not just for the art.<br /><br />(Regarding politics, let's not - this day - once more open up the Gaetz of Hell.)<br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-32443804432573104032021-04-21T20:23:15.116-04:002021-04-21T20:23:15.116-04:00Off topic, but what the hell happened to the color...Off topic, but what the hell happened to the colors in the artwork reproduced in this article ? --<br /><br />https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2021/03/our-favorite-covers/<br /><br />Someone seems to have gone a little crazy with the Hue/Saturation in Photoshop. Ugh.<br /><br />Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-10210989030632512302021-04-21T18:11:12.441-04:002021-04-21T18:11:12.441-04:00Kev Ferrara-- I'm very concerned that my depen...Kev Ferrara-- I'm very concerned that my dependence on your psychiatric services is going to place my name on a "red flag law" list in gun control states. Is it OK if I pay with Venmo like Matt Gaetz and label it "tuition"?<br /><br />I think the reason Frazetta comes up a lot in my exchanges with you is that I want to use benchmarks that I know you'll recognize and respect. So for example, if you say that Fawcett's line is "superficially agitated" and I want to discuss the worth of an active line, one with varying widths and textures, I could just as easily refer you to Virgil Finlay or Norman Lindsay or Bernie Wrightson, but why not go directly to an artist whose line work you already know so well? As predicted, you recognized all my references right away. <br /><br />It's clear Frazetta knew the value of a lively line but in his weaker, lazier (and as you add, "younger") moments he spent a lot of time showing off his evenly spaced uniform lines. My point was solely to contrast that kind of line with Fawcett's "agitated" lines. <br /><br />What childhood trauma led me to prefer a lively line to a dull, repetitive line? Hard to say. Yes, I admit I believe that simplicity and economy are generally virtues in art, but not always. Yes, I suspect that some artists believe they are safer drawing lots of little lines than one big one. (Murray Tinkelman, for example). They think they can escape accountability by blurring their artistic choices with three or four or ten lines where one would suffice. Yes, I suspect that some artists (ahem) like to show off their hand/eye coordination; I agree that the control necessary to make such lines is something to brag about, but I don't think it's the highest pursuit of an artist. Finally,any artist who requires 172 lines to capture the folds created in a blouse stretched across a 1950s bullet bra has something on his mind besides art.<br /><br />Perhaps the least subjective explanation for my personal taste comes down to basic math, what economists call diminishing marginal utility: with each additional fine line that replicates the previous fine line, the artist requires a little less thought or judgment (and adds less value to the picture).<br /><br />Anyway, this is clearly no way to discuss the quality of lines, unless of course they are lines of prose. Let me put up some pictures of lines for you to insult in my next post.<br /><br /><br /><br /> David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-25494706864449115012021-04-21T16:27:26.978-04:002021-04-21T16:27:26.978-04:00Frazetta's Weird Science Fantasy #29 cover (wh...<b>Frazetta's Weird Science Fantasy #29 cover (which is what I had in mind when I said Frazetta would use 30 lines to show the curvature of a leg)</b><br /><br />I would explain the aesthetics of what Frazetta's doing with his linework in WSF #29, by way of demonstrating (at least to everybody else, if not you) why it is perfectly legitimate as technique. (Although, who would need such an argument when simply looking and feeling will suffice.) But I think such arguments are beside the point. <br /><br />The truth is at a least part of the issue here is you have an idée fixe about just how many lines are <i>allowed</i> for ink rendering, or what kind of lines are proper - regardless of the aesthetic purpose of those lines - and you're going to assert that taste as some kind of Iron Law every time the subject comes up.<br /><br />Not quite sure where this dogma comes from. Maybe at some point somebody told you 'less is more' and that too-reductive statement turned into your visual religion. Maybe you grew up looking at certain illustrations and now they have nostalgic appeal to you, or they've embedded themselves in your taste/sensibilities down to the brainstem. Such that even meaningless edginess in rendering is fine and "legitimate" so long as it conforms to the minimalist prescription, era, or the style you like. <br /><br /><b>It may sound like I'm being negative when I'm contrasted with the people who worship him as a god, but I'm merely trying to bring the same discriminating eye to Frazetta that I try to apply to everyone else.</b> <br /><br />I'm fascinated that his name came up here at all. Completely out of the blue, as far as I can tell. Which, I think, only goes to show that re: your antipathy toward Frazetta and his fans - there's something much deeper at play than mere taste. Otherwise the resentment wouldn't keep welling up within you and expressing itself almost at random.<br /><br />That will be $220 for the session. Same time next week?kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-84408355843248603182021-04-21T14:55:10.254-04:002021-04-21T14:55:10.254-04:00Kev Ferrara wrote: "Frazetta did those when h...Kev Ferrara wrote: "Frazetta did those when he was like 22 years old, when he was just learning. Given that fact, do you believe that basing your argument on those particular works is in good faith?"<br /><br />Yes I do. First, because that period in Frazetta's career is frequently touted by Frazetta fans as proof of his "genius." Second because I already linked and referred to later drawings, such as the overworked picture of Tarzan carrying the woman off into the trees. Third because the period of Ghost Rider and Buster Crabbe is only 3 years away from Frazetta's Weird Science Fantasy #29 cover (which is what I had in mind when I said Frazetta would use 30 lines to show the curvature of a leg). Fourth, because Frazetta's bad habit continued for another dozen years, into his Canaveral plates and well into his prime. I don't know if the names of these drawings mean anything, but if you can find the Canaveral drawing that fans have labeled "Lord of the Savage Jungle," it's a prime example of the weakness I'm trying to describe. The Canaveral plate with the big alligator is another. (This exercise of trying to describe examples just convinces me I was correct in my response to Wes; I really need to put up some examples for people to react to, rather than attempting to do this with words.) <br /><br />I should repeat, as I've said many times, that I think Frazetta was brilliant, and I love a lot of his work. It may sound like I'm being negative when I'm contrasted with the people who worship him as a god, but I'm merely trying to bring the same discriminating eye to Frazetta that I try to apply to everyone else. David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.com