Original Art Sundays (MOnday) no. 300: Sharp Invitations: Curt, pp. 39 and 40

 Posting on Monday this week. I wanted to take the time to make this a double header. Not only is it a crucial moment in the story, but it's post # 300! Something of a milestone that leads me to reflect on my art, my goals and the evolution of my process.

When we left our happy couple, they were in the throes of a very tentative idyllic domestic bliss. Here's what happened next.

That's the way domestic abuse goes. Everything can seem just peachy, and some innocent thing, like a phone ringing, can detonate an explosion. No overt trans content in this part of the narrative.

The backgrounds on p. 39 are tentative but serviceable. I put in a wash background on the first panel, used an old school marker on the third, and blended them out in Photoshop.

I got excited with a couple things on these pages. The last panel of p. 39 is influenced by Alan Davis' work on Miracleman issue 3, page 21, last panel. I got all brave inking this one with just one brush, and was very satisfied with the results. Some Kirby special effects were modified after the fact in Photoshop. The poses reflect the characters' emotional state, a lesson I took to heart from Archie Comics artist Harry Lucey.

The splash page was such fun! A few weeks ago, I was intrigued by an accidental ink smear and the energy the effect gave. I wanted to to incorporate it into this story, and this seemed the perfect opportunity. To get the effect, I used Frisket to mask out a pencil illustration, then masked the live area border. I used a slip sheet to cover the text area, went in with my favorite ink and a big #8 angle brush, let it dry and then just lifted the Frisket. The Frisket is applied using either a brush pre-treated with dish soap, or with adjustable nib ruling pens. This process requires patience. Everything has to dry and fully set up before moving on to the next page. I love this process and will use it again where it serves the story.

The crucial question is always what goes in and what stays out. Editing, especially in your own work, is a three step process: selection, combination and elimination. I love intricate and detailed comic work. But more and more, I find I'm working by Alex Toth's mantra.

I'm very excited that this chapter is so close to resolution. This is the trick middle of the book. Most of the first third is done, and the aftermath of this chapter and the story resolution remain. I greatly appreciate my readers sticking around for this journey!

Tools used on these pages:

• Canson Bristol Board 
• Triangle and T-Square, Ames lettering guide, masking tape, slipsheet (printer paper)
  
• 3B Derwent Pencil, tech pencil
• Inkwell dish
  
• Ballpoint pen
  
• Pen nib and holder
• Microns: .02, .03, .05, .08, 1.0 and brush tip
• Prismacolor marker gray 50%
• Dish soap
• Adjustable nib ruling pen
• Faber-Castell plastic eraser
• Dr. Martin's Black Magic Ink
• FW Acrylic White
• Dr. Martin's Acrylic Frisket
• Rubber Cement Pickup
• Brushes: Kingart Round 04, 06 & 08, Grumbacher Flat 02, Royal Synthetic Flat Angle 08, Princeton 10 round, Blick 02 & 06 round

Next: it gets more intense.

Gravediggers of Comic Art

I'm coming around on the Lichentstein issue.
Two days ago, there was a Christie's auction. A Lichenstein painting, based on (some would say stolen from) a comic panel, set a record price.




Lichetnstein irritates the beejezus out of me. His work dissects comic art and parades pieces of the cadaver. While he had every right to paint what he chose, I have a right to my view of his work too.
And my view is that Roy was working with no respect for his source material, yet taking full advantage of said material.
I get the theory behind it. He's made the paintings about period-specific production techniques, a sort of deconstruction/reconstruction.
Strangely, people who object to the inclusion of once-living tissue and creatures in art have no such objections to the dissection of art itself.
But the fact that he never once acknowledged his sources beyond the vague "comic book panels" speaks directly to a dismissive attitude towards the source material. David Barsalou has done a scathing one-to-one comparison of Lichtenstien's paintings with his "source works".
Art Speigleman said, "I have all sorts of issues with the idea that a Lichtenstein painting of a comic book panel is art but the original comic panel it draws on is not considered art. I hate that whole attitude and way of looking at this stuff. Lichtenstein did for comics what Warhol did for Campbell's Soup - it had nothing to do with comics. It had to do with exploiting the form without any of the content."
Speigleman's response was also represented in his work, specifically this piece, High Art Lowdown, done in response to the tepid treatment of comics at MoMA's High Art/Low Art exhibition.

I modified my views a bit when I read about Roy attending a National Cartoonist's Society meeting in 1964.
Mort Walker, creator of Hi and Lois and of Lois's nephew Beetle Bailey, offered a remarkably kind memory of that experience. Walker is a keen observer of comic history, and the seeming simplicity of his work belies his profound understanding of the mechanics of the medium of comics.
As such, I respect his perspective a great deal.

"Thanks for saving my life."
Okay, then. But you still felt no need to give back to the art form that gave you so much, did you, Roy? You could have at least given proper credit to the creators whose panels you, ahem, adapted.
My friends from other parts of the art world take me to task for this attitude. They contend that I'm rather thin-skinned when it comes to comics being taken seriously.
Maybe so.
But until I see an Alex Toth original, or a Hugo Pratt, scoring this kind of dough and being taken seriously by the "legitimate" art world, until that work is shown in museums alongside the Lichtenstein works, I don't think comic art has yet attained its proper position in the art world.
I'll grant we're closer than we ever have been, but there's still work to be done!