UNCLE EDDIE'S THEORY CORNER!

DELETED COMMENTS

2009-07-11T15:35:00.000-07:00

Uncle Eddie: "I very seldom deliberately delete a comment. When I do, I feel really guilty about it. I mean the person who wrote it had to have gone to some trouble, even if it was just a death threat, and that should be acknowledged. In recognition of that, here's a few unpublished comments from the past three years.

"Uncle Eddie, you stud muffin...how's about you and me...steppin'?"

"Haw Haw (Snick! Harnk!)! Just kidding, Silly!! That was me! Hey, what did you think of 'Assassin's Creed?' Isn't that a way cool game?"

"Eddie, can I have the address of the girl on top?"

"Hi Eddie! Greetings from the 'Anonymous' community. Thanks for letting us comment here!"

"I'm sorry, but I find your practice of doing photo stories with a girl's wig on to be disgusting!"

"Uncle Eddie, I like your site but why do you persist in posting so many pictures of normal-looking women? What men want to see is babes...you know what I mean!"

"Um, Eddie...can I have the address of that handsome man above?"

"Here's a kiss for you Eddie...from a fan in Philadelphia!"

"Ditto from a fan in Wisconsin!"

"Another to you is kissing from fan we are being in Khazkstan!"

"Don't worry about putting stuff up that's bad for kids. We can take it!"

"Uncle Eddie, is it true that your male assets are...well, formidable?"

PAUL COLINS: GENIUS LITHO ARTIST

2009-07-09T22:25:00.000-07:00

Parisian artist Paul Colins was arguably the best jazz poster artist ever, and this (above) is his most famous poster.

Like everybody else in Paris in 1925 he was bowled over by the Revue Negre, which featured Josephine Baker dancing in a banana outfit. The revue also introduced 'The Charleston" to France. Audiences went nuts!

The famous bananas (above).

Colin couldn't fit all his impressions into posters so he did a series of lithographs for a book called "Le Tumulte Noir," which is where most of these pictures are from. Baker sat for him several times.

The odd angles of the poses struck by the dancers wowed everybody...

...as did the frank sexuality. I'd be amazed if any of them danced bottomless, though.

In Colin's words, Baker was "part boxer kangaroo, part rubber woman, part female Tarzan." Baker was one of the all-time great free-form dancers. I tried to embed one of her YouTube videos here, but couldn't for some reason.

Here's (above) the kind of thing Colins did when he wasn't drawing jazz artists.

Are some of these pictures racist? I honestly don't know. When they're done as well as these are, the whole question gets hard to focus on. You could argue that the red minstrel lips are a racial stereotype, on the other hand the artist clearly admires many of the people he depicts, even when he makes fun of them.

MEAN GIRLS

2009-07-07T08:03:00.000-07:00

Like a lot of men I find the idea of mean women to be completely contradictory. I mean women, almost by definition, are kind and nurturing, aren't they? Apparently not, in some cases.

Every girl I've talked to about it has horror stories of other girls who gave them grief in school. Sometimes the bullying is physical, sometimes it takes the form of a whispering campaign aimed at separating the victim from her friends.

A really evil girl will go even farther. She'll try to change her victim's perception of herself. If the aggressor succeeds, even when the target is grown up she'll be a wallflower with limited career possibilities and no self-esteem. It amazes me that even evil girls will devote so much energy to damaging girls they hardly know.

I'm dying to know what happens to mean girls when they get to be say, 25 or 30. What percent of them mellow out?

If you have a daughter, and send her to school, then I offer you this picture (above) of the girl who'll greet her in the schoolyard every day. This photo gives me the creeps. It displays a combination of natural meanness stoked by teen aggression hormones. No wonder your daughter hates school.

Oddly enough, surly Goth girls usually aren't the biggest aggressors. Maybe my artist's bias is at work here, but I reason that if Goth girls have a sense of style, which is a form of art appreciation, that this implies a yearning for higher culture. Am I wrong?

Meanness in young girls is shocking and appalling, but in older women women it's sometimes tolerable, provided you don't have to come in frequent contact with it. Maybe that's because nature has already applied its penalty. Maybe because it's sort of funny. Women like this tend to establish little kingdoms where they rule over small, alcoholic husbands and rebellious teenagers.

But there's a serious side. Imagine what it must have been like a hundred years ago in third world countries like China. Older women were sometimes merciless slave drivers who had no pity for the poor girls who worked for them.

You see it in some men, but it's more unexpected and therefore more disconcerting in women...that restless energy, that hungry need to go for the jugular of people they scarcely know.

I love this picture (above). I've used it in two blog posts. When this kid grows up...man, just walk on the other side of the street and never, ever give her the wrong change!

FRAZETTA VS. WOOD

2009-07-05T19:15:00.000-07:00

It isn't often that you get to compare the work of your favorite artists in some way that can lay claim to being objective. Maybe the closest you could get to a fair contest would be one in which both artists attempted to illustrate the same story, without being able to reference each other's work. Well, that's what we have here: Frazetta and Wood illustrating the same story. There's no stylistic similarity, so I'm guessing that neither saw how the other handled the story.

Hold your hats, it's going to be a battle royal!

I can't put up every page of the story, so I'll just put up highlights of what each artist did with the beginning, middle and end. The finished, inked page way at the very top is by Wood. The pencil page immediately above is by Frazetta. Frazetta's pages only exist in pencil because the magazine folded before he could start on the inking.

That's one of Wood's middle pages above. The story goes something like this: a lonely bachelor is staying at his hunting lodge in the woods. A beautiful girl knocks on the door requesting help. Her car broke down, and she was pursued through the woods by someone or something intent on capturing her. The bachelor takes her in and offers her his protection. They start chatting and discover that each is the other's ideal mate. They fall deeply in love.

That's one of Frazetta's middle pages above.

Here's (above) the next Frazetta page. As their love deepens an announcement is heard on the radio.

Above, the next Frazetta page.

The radio announcer says a beautiful blonde mad woman has escaped from the local asylum. The announcer warns that she's very beguiling, but is not to be trusted. She's a homicidal maniac who slowly cuts up and horribly mutilates her victims. Under no circumstances should anyone let her into their home.

The bachelor is horrified. He kicks the girl out, locks the door, and spends the night upright in a chair, holding a rifle. Outside the girl begs to be let in.

She says they both found the true love of their lives in the cabin. She says he needs to trust that, and not the radio. She says the maniac is approaching. How, she asks, could he leave the girl he loves defenseless, in the hands of a fiend? With great difficulty the bachelor listens to blood-curdling screams all night. Finally the screams stop and the sun comes up. With gun in hand he opens the door to the porch.

That's Wood's page above.

The bachelor opens the door and discovers....the hacked, mutilated body of the girl he loved, and who he kicked out of the cabin. The girl, the love of his life who had pleaded for help, had been telling the truth all along.

That's Frazetta's final page, above. So who do you think won the competition? Who did the superior version of the story?

BTW, the format of the second version is different because it was undertaken later when the Congressional hearing on comics forced EC to recast their comics stories in magazine form. The reasoning was that magazines are assumed to be for adults and are therefore less vulnerable to censorship. The public didn't go for it. Sales of the magazine format declined (Mad excepted) and the horror titles fizzled out. Poor Frazetta was ordered to seize work on the magazine story before he could finish it.

I assume that he never saw the earlier Wood version because there's no similarity in the approach.

Also BTW: Thanks to Milt for bringing this to my attention and providing the artwork.

FILM LESSONS FROM BUSTER KEATON

2009-07-03T19:43:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting book, especially if you live in L.A. and are a Keaton fan like I am. The book takes frame grabs from the films and puts them side by side with shots of the same backgrounds, made today. If you're like me, and thinking about shooting some outdoor footage yourself, you might be able to take away some interesting lessons from this book.

Here the composition in the frame grab (above, left) favors the people and not the building, and it's clearly funnier that way. Next time I'm shooting real people against a beautiful building, I'll remember this. The modern picture also seems too contrasty, and the cars are a distraction.

I can't stand walking down sun-drenched streets with no protection. I'm always glad for trees and awnings (above). Even so, the mansions have much more comedic impact in the treeless pictures at the top. There the starkness of the mansions is a potent symbol for power and wealth.

More mansion shots. The one on the top is so stark and sunny! I guess when you're filming in the real world you have to seek out the backgrounds that will look good on film, no matter hot and oppressive it is to film there.

I like the way the mansion reads like a simple shape in the top photo...the perfect backdrop for comedy.

Comparing the building photos in the upper left with the one on the lower right: boy, the lower one certainly seems tacky and overly contrasty. The awnings on the old buildings are also sorely missed. If your home or business doesn't have awnings, what are you waiting for? All buildings look better with awnings!

I love trees (above), but on filmed comedies they make the scene too busy.

What wretch tore down the buildings above?

By the way, this shot reminds me that a slightly high camera takes in more of the sidewalk and makes characters read better. A good idea is to shoot on an overcast day, which greys everything down, and wear a dark suit yourself.

I think The Stooges also used this corner (above) in one of their films. It's funniest when shot frontally and symmetrically like it is here.

Darkening the bottom (above) makes the building less funny.

Another case (above) where darkening the building takes the humor out. No doubt the crime in modern cities makes knee-high windows impractical. That's too bad. I love windows like that.

Above, one of the nice old buildings that used to abound in Los Angeles, and which Keaton used in one of his films. I want to know who tore these down, and if they're still alive, so I can boot them in the pants. Note the beautiful awnings.

DON MARTIN THANKSGIVING

2009-06-30T21:38:00.000-07:00

I ate too much to post. I'm gonna sack out on the sofa. See ya' Thursday!

BTW: The drawing is of course by Don Martin.

THE EX-BOYFRIEND

2009-06-28T22:05:00.000-07:00

INT. RESTAURANT: Lunch time.

Magnolia (Voice Over): "Yeah, all my boyfriends have been losers!"

Magnolia: "Oh, I don't mean you...I just mean...well, I have to wear dark glasses so they don't recognize me. What pests!"

Magnolia: "Really? You think it's okay to take them off here? Well, er...it is pretty crowded...I guess nobody could..."

Magnolia: "Yeah, nobody's gonna see me here! I'll do it!"

Fred (V.O.): "Magnolia! There you are!"

Magnolia: "Oh, Good Grief!"

Magnolia: "Hi, Fred. Fancy meeting you here!"

Fred (V.O.): "Magnolia, let's stop the pretense. I know that you're aware of me. For a long time I've watched you secretly. But for the past few days I've stopped hiding, and now I know that the moment has come."

Magnolia: "Um...the moment?"

Fred (V.O.): "Yes. You see, before discovering you I never loved anybody."

Fred (V.O.): But between us things will be different. "

Fred (V.O.): "We'll be the example for others to follow."

Fred (V.O): We'll never leave each other, not even for an hour."

Fred (V.O.): I don't work and have no responsibilities in life."

Fred (V.O.): "You will be my sole pre-occupation."

Fred (V.O.): "I understand that this is too sudden for you to say yes at once...that you would first have to break off your provisional attachments to provisional people."

Magnolia: "Well, actually it is just a little...."

Fred (V.O): "Just remember...I AM DEFINITIVE. I must go now."

Magnolia: Definitive...yes...definitive. Well, See you around Fred."

Magnolia: "Watch out for traffic!"

Magnolia: "Don't look the other way when a car comes!"

Magnolia: "Bye, now! Don't fall down any manholes!

Magnolia: "Is he gone?"

Magnolia: "Hey, the waiter didn't give us water! What kind of restaurant is this!?"

BTW: Dialogue is an altered version of a piece by Francois Truffaut.

WHAT I'M READING NOW

2009-06-27T07:47:00.000-07:00

I should really call this "What I'm Thumbing Through Now," since I haven't had much time to read in the past few weeks. Here's (above) an interesting, if somewhat disappointing, book I got from the library: "Plains Indian Drawings 1865-1935." Gee, I love what I've heard about Indian culture, but I have to say that I didn't know the Plains Indians were such bad artists.

The drawings I'm putting up here are pretty much the cream of the crop. The average drawing in the book looked like modern kids drawings, except that modern kids are more likely to draw things as well as people. The cover drawing is great, and so is the famous drawing above, or it should be famous, because so many modern American artists and illustrators were influenced by it.

You see the influence in fashion illustration (above) all the time. To judge from the Indian drawings in the book, American Indians were fascinated by what they wore and painted on themselves. They didn't spend much time on getting a likeness in the face, or on getting the muscles or the perspective right...it was all about the clothes. Apparently Plains Indians were more obsessed than we are about looking good.

Saul Steinberg's work (above) was clearly influenced by indian art.

A quick digression: I just stumbled on a picture (above) of Steinberg, and I thought you might want to see what he looked like.

Of course the Plains Indians were nomads, and I suppose nomads haven't much use for permanent pictures. Even so, these drawings might be an insight into the kind of thing the artists valued. They certainly were clothes-conscious, and they evidently considered battle a good excuse to show off their finery.

Like many primitive people they seemed to think nature was an unfit subject for art. Trees and mountains seldom appear and when they do they get the short shrift. There are no still lifes of a bowl of apples, no glorious sunrises and star-filled nights, no animals except horses. Teepees were drawn with an emphasis on the designs painted on them.

For an artist like me the Indian life depicted in these pictures seems pretty boring. Like the Homeric Greeks their real art form seemed to be the cultivation of character and one's own personal legend, together with horseback riding, hunting, dressing nice and war. The drawings are oddly humorless and indicative of a lack of interest in the world around them. You only realize how sophisticated the outlook of modern man is when you have something like these for comparison.

I'll note that these pictures may have been made by mostly non-artists. It's possible that all people who don't draw frequently draw similar subjects, i.e., other people and their interesting clothes. Maybe I'm reading too much into these drawings.

I'm also reading a book called, "The Pictorial History of Radio." Early on broadcasters devoted air time to music, and this (above) is how they did it. They played records in front of a horn.

Here's (above) one of the first mass market radio sets. It was called the "Aereola."

People used radio as a babysitting device, just like they do now. Aaargh!

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON ARCHITECTURE

2009-06-23T22:46:00.000-07:00

An interesting tower (above) made doubly interesting because it's back lit by diffused sunlight. If you were an architect, wouldn't it be fun to design structures for foggy places? You could make the case that all climates should have their own unique architecture. Tropical architecture would be a no-brainer, but imagine imagine buildings designed to look good in the snow, or under gloomy, overcast skies.

I do have some misgivings about this picture. If you put your thumb over the tower, the rest of the structure isn't that interesting.

I love stairs and the example above is one of the best I've ever seen. Here the stairs come in rolling, almost musical waves with a promise of profound revelation at the top.

The trouble is, though, that unless you're 12 years-old, long staircases are a chore to climb. Government buildings traditionally have long stairs to remind visitors how insignificant they are. What an odd message to send in a democracy where the people are supposed to be in charge.

I'd be curious to know what Ruskin would have thought of this (above) picture. I know he was against excessive decoration on cathedrals. Even if there's more than a touch of decadence here, relative to the austere, and probably more religiously inspiring cathedrals of an earlier time, I still find the shapes fascinating.

How do you like the high ceilings and wonderful light in this (above) English manor house? The doorway beside it is interesting too, though maybe over done. Doorways are powerful romantic and psychological symbols, and it seems odd to throw all that away in order to emphasize the meaningless space above the door.

A curse on the wretches who tore down beautiful buildings like his one (above) in the last century. I love structures like this, but I still can't help wondering why people spent so much time and money on the roof and upper floors. I mean, why didn't they put the biggest effort into the lower floors, which are more visible from the street?

Maybe the builders were attic enthusiasts. Maybe giant attics and roofs are cheap to build and provide more visual bang for the buck than lower floors. Maybe big attics serve as insulation and heat radiators.

Can you believe that buildings like this (above) were ever torn down?

I love the interlocking shapes of wood at the intersections of beams in Asian temples and old bridges. You see it in modern Western architecture too sometimes, and the effect is always welcome.

DEEPEST MISERY

2009-06-19T23:10:00.000-07:00

You sit alone, Ray Brandon.

You sit alone in a house haunted by memories...

...memories of the greatest happiness and yet the deepest misery that you've ever known. But you're not thinking of happiness now, are you? You're thinking of the days in which you made this house ready for Charlotte with your own hands...the days thru which the laughter of an adopted son gave new warmth to your life.

Remember the day when the little boy's tiny hand tweaked your nose?

You laughed and laughed!

Those were indeed golden days.

You're also forcing yourself to remember the dead, lifeless months that followed the return of that child to its real mother, Meta Baur.

They were sad days, weren't they, Ray? In your grief you shut your wife out.

Charlotte kept trying to mend things between you.

But you wouldn't let her in, would you?

You thought you could take love, a woman's feelings, Ray, and tear them apart like a piece of cloth, and try to put the love together again...but the pieces never fit quite the same, do they? No wonder Dr. Mary Leland spoke to you as she did.

And now Charlotte's lying in a hospital after you forced her to return to this house, this wife who stood by you thru the most difficult times of your life.

Yes, she was there when in your grief you chased after other women.

She was there when you fought to clear yourself of a crime you didn't commit, a prison sentense you didn't deserve, a battle to build a career as a lawyer for yourself, a wife who believed in you, gave you encouragement, loved you with every fiber of her being, a wife who was ready to forgive you anything, everything, as long as you loved her.

Ray, do you remember the words of your old rival, Sid Harper?

Sid also loved Charlotte, and nearly married her.

Do his words keep pounding in your brain? "You crucified that girl, Brandon! You treated her like a dog!"

"It's your fault she's in the hospital now!"

"You're a fool! A stupid fool!!!"

"A stupid, stupid fool!"

TO BE CONTINUED.............

BTW: Thanks to Rusty for identifying this as an episode of "The Guiding Light." I don't know the name of the original writer.

WHY WE NEED STEAM LOCOMOTIVES!

2009-06-18T23:12:00.000-07:00

I know of no form of land-based personal transportation that's more fun to ride than a horse, but a close second is a glorious, full-blown passenger train pulled by a real steam locomotive. America should be laying track, not ripping it up.

Imagine how bracing it would be to ride in an open flat car with seats, under a canopy of trees like this (above). I did that a few years ago and the experience was so moving that I'll likely never forget it.

It's amazing that a noisy, heavy, industrial product like a locomotive should fit in so well with nature.

Maybe steam trains seem so environmentally friendly because they're confined to a narrow set of tracks, and don't make frequent stops. Maybe it's because the trains seem more like animals than machines. They actually have character. You root for them as they try to negotiate a hill.

Oh bliss!...riding along the treetops...the treetops!...and across a stream on a trestle!

Oddly enough, it's not the steam power by itself that makes trains so appealing. Put the same boiler and funnel on wheels (above) and it seems like a senseless nuisance. For some reason a train has to ride on rails to capture our imaginations.

My guess is that the appeal has to do with the uniquely pleasing and stimulating sounds and motions of steam trains on tracks...that and the terrific visuals. As I said before, steam trains seem to have personalities. There are few other machines you can say that about. I suppose mechanical clocks have a little of that quality. Even toasters have a bit of it.

This business of pleasing sensations derived from things seems like an odd subject to discuss, yet when you think about it, it's not discussed enough. I wish there was a book that catalogued things like this. If there was, then architects and designers could refer to it. Wouldn't it be nice to walk through a building that combined interesting tactile and aural cues with stimulating and romantic visuals? Wouldn't it be nice to have more items and buildings in the world that had appealing personalities?

Here's (above) the Disneyland Express entering a tunnel. Tunnels are so mysterious, and so congenial to trains. They appear like a gateway to another world, like the rabbit hole in "Alice in Wonderland." There should always be lush greenery around a tunnel.

Geez, I have to use Hello Kitty photos to show what the interior of the Disneyland passenger cars look like. It's embarrassing! Anyway, the idea that passengers should face the side is an interesting one.

Disneyland-size steam railroads should be all over the suburbs of our big cities, and they should be used for real, practical transport, not just entertainment. The first city to try this will see a big rise in income from tourists.

I like this photo (above) because it shows how naturally small steam trains fit in with ordinary urban landscapes. Amtrack fails to do this because of the awkward and unimaginative design of the cars.

I stumbled on this photo (above) of a small, rural train platform that's fallen into disuse. Wow! Clean up the tracks and it'll be ready for business again. Let the plants try to cover the platform...it makes for an interesting atmosphere! It's like a train platform in the middle of Jurassic Park. You expect to see raptors!

Once we have steam trains back, we can phase in cool, 0ld-style train stations (above).

I grew up near a beautiful train station like the one above. I and my kid friends had many philosophical discussions while sitting on wooden benches under the platform roof. I especially liked to be there while it was raining, during a thunder and lightening storm. The station sheltered us like a kindly grandfather, and it was bracing to see giant, heavy locomotives hiss and shutter to a stop in the rain.

Why do we moderns deny ourselves the simple pleasures of life? I love high tech...I wish I had a personal jet plane...but I also like horses and small wooden sailboats. Since everybody else likes them too, why don't we re-instate them where ever it's appropriate? Cars are fine, but lets have other kinds of mass transportation too.

SHERLOCK HOLMES' CLUTTERED APARTMENT

2009-06-16T22:08:00.000-07:00

I hate to admit this, but the last time I was in London, I went way out of my way to visit Baker Street in the hope of seeing 221B, the home of Sherlock Holmes. Of course I knew that Holmes was a fictional character. I mean, I'm not stupid... I didn't really expect to see him... no, I just thought I'd hang out around there just in case I might get a chance to see him. Please don't try to reason that out. I feel bad enough.

I met a lot of other like-minded people and we all ended up in the Sherlock Holmes Museum, which had a facsimile living room, reconstructed from the information in the books.

I expected to see clutter (that's an average living room of the period above) because that was the fashion in Edwardian England. Someone said that the interior design of that time was meant to trap any dust particle that found its way inside, and prevent it from ever finding it's way outside.

What I didn't expect was the extreme clutter that poor Sherlock had to put up with. No wonder he looks so waxy. You'd look that way too if you had to sit in near darkness all day long, unable to take more than two steps in a straight line. Even with a full time cleaning lady, this was apparently the best he could do.

Here's (above) Sherlock's chemistry corner. The poor guy had to sit on his violin in order to use it.

The chair is ripped. Is that significant? Did one of the stories mention a ripped chair? Geez, poor, poor Sherlock! I feel like passing around a collection plate for him.

Lot's of people leave the museum with the resolve to make their own home as cluttered and interesting as Holmes'. Here's (above) one effort in that direction. I kinda like it. Note the

Buster Keaton death mask on the wall.

SEIBOLD, SEGAR & HERRIMAN

2009-06-14T19:06:00.000-07:00

I spent a few hours this weekend catching up with my comics reading. I started with Fantagraphics' Popeye series, the one with Olive Oyl on the cover. Wow! What a revelation! If you're a cartoonist laboring under the difficulty of creating gritty, earthy, and appealing characters, you could find no better inspiration than these E. C. Segar strips from 1930-32. Click to enlarge.

Olive Oyl's a great character. Time after time she dumps Popeye for someone better, then has to crawl back when it doesn't work out. Seegar evidently believed that some people are just meant for each other, and no amount of effort can change that.

I also read some of "The Kat Who Walked in Beauty," a collection of Herriman's Saturday pages from 1920. Sorry the sample strip (above) is split in into two parts. The source was too big for my scanner to take it in all at once.

This stuff is pure genius! Maybe modern readers have trouble with it because current humor is all about punchlines and hip attitude. In Herriman's day it had more to do with funny drawings, weird situations, ambience, parody of formal illustration, and silly staging. Anyway, if you've had trouble warming up to Herriman's Krazy Kat strips, but you're still curious to know why the man is so well-regarded, then this is the book for you. Buy it now, before it disappears.

The book calls these strips "panoramic." They're pretty long. Boy, some newspapers must have been as big as bed sheets!

I'm no historian, but surely Herriman was the co-inventer of the what we think of as the newspaper comic style. Herriman wasn't the first strip artist, but he must have been one of the first to work in a style which wasn't derived from book illustration and political cartoons. The style is truly funny and lends itself to infinite variety and expression.

The two pages above (fragmented, not related to each other) are from a graphic novel that's been around for years: "The Beauty Supply District" by Ben Katchor. I got it from the library for the art work and didn't even bother with the story. Now just an hour ago I discovered that the story might be worth reading after all, but it's too late...the book is due. I guess I'll have to take it out again.

Anyway, what attracted me were the backgrounds. They're so out in front that they completely overwhelm the characters, but you have to admit that they are interesting. It's funny that some artists are attracted to...to things. Artists like that can never tune out the environment and historical context. They're always aware of the door behind them, and the varnish on the table top. It would be fun to do a cartoon story where different characters get different background styling, depending on their personalities.

The last artist I spent time with over the weekend was J. Otto Seibold, the kids book illustrator. He did the Mr. Lunch and Olive the Reindeer books. That's him above.

I found this (above) unrelated picture next to Seibold's on the net. I reproduce it here for the edification of the men on the site.

Sorry for the digression. Anyway, Seibold has an interesting style. The book jacket says he was the first kids book illustrator to do his books on the computer. He works in that wall-eyed post-modern style, but he manages to make it his own.

His earlier books (above) were colored conservatively.

Now he takes big risks with the color (above), and it's paying off. Seibold was a background concept artist on Pixar's "Monsters Inc." I wonder why they didn't use any of his architectural ideas. Seibold does films of his own, but the ones I saw always missed the mark. I wish I could have directed one of them, even though it's far from my style.

Seibold lives in San Francisco with his wife, author (I can't read the first name)___Vivian. She has a store that sells Seibold-type clothes and pictures, and which has interesting mannequins (above) throughout.

Seibold's much-imitated style is everywhere now (the picture above was done by another artist). Seibold is only one of many artists who do Seibold...but he manages to stay out in front of the pack.

DO YOU HAVE THE LATEST JIM SMITH SKETCHBOOK?

2009-06-11T07:29:00.001-07:00

I feel like such an idiot! Jim had a new sketchbook out and I didn't realize it until I saw a copy of it at the House of Secrets comic store in Burbank. My review: It's a winner! If you're an artist it's a must have!

I don't know how Jim does it. He's the only cartoonist I know who can make perspective (above) funny.

For Jim perspective isn't just a tool that adds volume and drama, it's a major part of the joke. Perspective is an attribute that his characters have, like red hair or a big nose. Sometimes you get the feeling that they're embarrassed to have all those lumps and angles.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to be Jim Smith, and see the world through eyes attuned to perspective.

Even a walk down the street (above) would be interesting.

Jim looks at his shoes.

Well, back to the world of flat. If you want to see more of Jim Smith's world, go to his blog and buy his book. It's on my links in the sidebar.

REAL CLIFF STERRET FURNITURE!

2009-06-09T22:04:00.000-07:00

I don't know how many times I've heard cartoonists say that they wish they could live in a Cliff Sterret house. That's Cliff Sterret's work above, and I too would like to have a house (or at least a room) furnished like that. Come to think of it, I almost did.

In the early 80s there was a serious attempt to sell Cliff Sterret-type furniture. It started with a design studio in Milan called "Memphis," headed up by Ettore Sottsass. That's his studio's work above. Not everything in the photo is his best work, but you get the idea.

I remember thinking at the time that this comic-strip furniture wouldn't last forever, and that I'd better buy some stuff before it disappeared. Real Memphis furniture was out of my price range so I waited for cheaper knockoffs, but when they came the quality was lacking. Not only that but Memphis didn't always hit home runs. I kept waiting for knock-offs of the better works but they were a long time coming. Memphis took a big hit because of the timidity of furniture manufacturers, and Memphis's distaste for comfortable furniture.

The Sterret influence was obvious to cartoonists, but I don't remember any art critic pointing it out. Critics were probably ignorant of cartoon styles.

Try to deny that this vase (above) was influenced by Sterret!

Here's (above) some Memphis teapots. In this case the influence was probably Picasso or Picabia. It's funny how teapots are always on the front line of new design movements. I guess prototype ceramic pots are easier to make than steal cutlery.

This is my favorite Memphis design...the futuristic antler bookshelf painted with kid colors. I'd still like to have a shelf like this.

This sofa (above) would look great in a comic strip. I wonder why no newspaper artist of the 1980s attempted to parody modern furniture styling in a strip. I mean parody it the way Sterret used to. Of course by the 80s the newspaper strips were almost as tiny as they are now. Maybe there was no room.

Also, it looks like the sofa is made of cheap plywood with fabric stapled onto foam. Memphis had good ideas but you get the feeling that no one with real furniture know-how worked there.

The designer of this table (above) must have channeled Sterret!

Sterret liked to design the patterns in draperies and chair covers, and so did Memphis. That's their work above.

Like I said, Memphis didn't always hit home runs. The chair above looks pretty uncomfortable. It would have looked great in a comic strip or a cartoon, though!

ATLANTIS, LEMURIA (MU), HYPERBOREA

2009-06-06T19:21:00.000-07:00

Like everybody else I'm curious about the stories of lost continents like Atlantis and Mu, and of lost civilizations like Hyperborea. During the hippie era there were lots of paperback books on this subject. Some hippies were obsessed with it.

I wonder if some of these books were reprints of books written by Germans in the 10s, 20s and 30s. Himmler in particular was a believer in these lost continents and was convinced that these places were inhabited by proto-Aryans.

In the late 30s he sent a famous expedition to Tibet, which he believed was formerly inhabited by refugees from Atlantis. These refugees created a warrior culture, the Aryans, which was unfortunately (he believed) tainted by Buddhism. That warrior culture spread out to places like India, Persia, and Germany.

That's Ernst Schafer above, the guy who led the expedition.

Another picture of Schafer (above). That's him on the left. Notice the Indiana Jones-type pith helmet on the right with the SS symbol on the side.

Tibet (above) wasn't open to foreigners and getting in to measure skulls, look for artifacts, etc. was a chore. Tibetans were alternately hostile and friendly and were amused to find foreigners who thought they (the Tibetans) were a superior race.

A lot of these ideas were popularized by Hans Horbiger, who in turn was influenced by Madam Blavatsky, a 19th century mystic. Blavatsky's most famous book, "The Secret Doctrine" is available free on the internet somewhere. I found it unreadable, but maybe you'll have better luck.

Different authors had different theories, but here's the one Himmler latched on to, The World Ice Theory. According to this idea the universe is characterized by the conflict of fire in the form of stars, and ice which covers many planetary bodies. Somehow this conflict created ice spirits which emerged when a thunderbolt struck ice in the artic region of our own Earth. These spirits lived a civilized existence in a Northern land that came to be called Hyperborea.

Eventually the spirit creatures were driven out of their land by earthquakes, vulcanism, meteor strikes, etc., fled to Mexico and South America, and eventually ended up in Lemuria, a lost continent in the Pacific or in the Indian Ocean, depending on who you read.

The internet is full of maps with conflicting ideas about the location of Lemuria (above). In the map above I have no idea what the term "Cara Lines" and "Negroid Lines" mean, or why a sea was thought to have existed in the middle of South America. Somehow the Hyperborean spirit beings took on a human appearance at this time.

Natural catastrophes made Lemuria sink beneath the sea and Aryan corruption and decadence made the situation worse. Most of the population was lost but a few hardy refugees managed to make their way to Atlantis (above) where they established a virtual Utopia.

After a while, Atlantis (above) sunk too. Boy, Himmler's proto-Aryans weren't very lucky in their choice of places to live!

The nature of Atlantis changes according to the romantic ideals of the era that's considering it. The nazis attributed war-like racial theories to the Atlanteans, and the hippies attributed peaceful, pastoral natures to them. In recent decades the flying saucer people made Atlantis their own.

Anyway, the refugees from Atlantis established themselves in Tibet. At this point they became what Himmler believed were full-blown Aryans.

Here's (above) Ernst Schafer in a photo taken in 1992.

Here's the expedition's anthropologist, Hanns Beger (above) in a photo taken in 2001. The Tibet expedition only lasted for a year or two then both men returned to Germany, where they continued to work for the SS. Beger became an assistant to a concentration camp doctor who conducted torturous experiments on Jewish prisoners. One of these men, I can't remember which one, got into a scrape on a train in 1942 and tried to strangle a man to death.

LEYENDECKER AND ROCKWELL

2009-06-04T22:04:00.000-07:00

Boy, this recent Leyendecker book is a doosey! I can't believe how good this guy was! I didn't get the book when it came out last year because I thought the pictures overlapped with an earlier book that I had, but I was mistaken. There's some duplication, sure, but an awful lot of what's here is new to me.

Leyendecker has to be one of the manliest illustrators ever. I wish he was alive and working today. The world desperately needs to hear what he had to say.

The text is fascinating. I heard that Leyendecker was gay, but I didn't know the details. That's his live-in lover, Charles A. Beach, above. Maybe that's also Beach on the book cover pictured at the top.

Leyendecker met Beach when he was 17 and Beach was 29. Leyendecker was already fully professional and took on beach as a model. Little by little Beach insinuated himself into the artist's life. According to Norman Rockwell, Beach gradually ran the household. He lined up the models, bought the art supplies, paid the gardeners...by 1923 he'd nudged Leyendecker's sister aside and completely took over the artist's business affairs.

Beach sounds like the classic guest who wouldn't leave. Beach was a big guy and used to intimidate Leyendecker's family and friends, even his clients. He especially intimidated Leyendecker's brother, also an accomplished painter and collaborator, and even began taking credit for Leyendecker's paintings. This is amazing since he didn't paint but simply helped to stretch the canvases, and other small tasks. Leyendecker didn't seem to mind. He thought Beach was funny.

Rockwell was a long-time friend of Leyendecker, but he detested Beach who he described as "a real parasite, like some huge, white, cold insect clinging to Joe's back. And stupid. I don't think I ever heard him say anything vaguely intelligent."

The book portrays Norman Rockwell as a weasel who pumped Leyendecker for information on contacts and clients, then stole jobs from him. Rockwell was the intensely competitive younger artist who followed his idol around, imitated his swagger, and even moved to the same town to be near him.

The book alleges that Rockwell stole his approach to cover art from Leyendecker. Rockwell's use of white backgrounds with figures that overlap the text and borders was actually copied from Leyendecker's. Ditto Rockwell's holiday themes and Americana. Rockwell's style was so similar to his mentor's that some readers of The Post couldn't tell them apart. You wouldn't get that from the ultra-manly pictures I put up here, but the book is full of the cheerful, reverential, exquisitely crafted covers of the type we normally associate with Rockwell...only Leyendecker did it first.

The book further alleges that Leyendecker was defenseless against Rockwell because he was temperamentally quiet and reclusive, whereas Rockwell was a tireless self-promoter. Rockwell even put himself in his paintings.

I grew up loving Rockwell as so many people did, and I admit that it's hard for me to change my opinion about him on the basis of only one book. Even so, something about the allegations seems to ring true, if only in part.

ACTORS: HOW TO FIND YOUR SCREEN PERSONNA

2009-06-02T21:44:00.000-07:00

Here it is (above), "The Beast." How many actors have come to grief because they sought roles that fit their real personalities, rather than their potential cinematic ones? The truth is that The Beast doesn't care what roles you play or would like to play. It arbitrarily accepts you in some roles and not in others. Or maybe it doesn't accept you at all. It's scary!

As an example, here's me in a YouTube spoof on Match.com. Fast forward to the two minute mark where I play a seedy gigolo, turning around to face the camera. I play a lot of characters in this film, but that's the one that seems to come off the best. It's odd because in real life I'm the opposite of a seedy gigolo. I only discovered that I was passable at it because I tried a bunch of random things in front of the camera that day, and that was one of the few the camera would accept...that and an old lady, another unlikely pick. You could say that the camera decided what I'd do, not me.

In my opinion beginning film actors should film and photograph themselves constantly, then comb through the footage for what may be the few seconds that actually work. If the camera likes you, if only for a short time, then that's a clue as to what the camera will accept from you, and you can build on that.

WHAT THEY'RE WEARING IN BULGARIA

2009-05-31T17:37:00.001-07:00

Embroidery is a huge subject which I won't even attempt to do justice to here. I just want to promote an exceptionally good book on the subject, the one pictured above by Sheila Paine.

The book has a number of pictures of textile bazaars, like this one (above) in central Asia. If you're there and you're an artist, then this is where you'll spend most of your travel money.

Here's (above) a market place in Guatemala. A riot of color!

Above, a Peruvian textile scroll depicting all sorts of deities, including river gods. Ma-a-a-an! Very Nice!

Embroidery is still alive and well in Spain and Portugal. The guy above is wearing a shirt with symbols of love on it. I find that touching. The man proudly wears a shirt that declares that he's loved by a woman who's handy with a needle. It's so charming and primal.

White shirts with understated red trim like this also used to be common in Poland and North Germany.

Oddly enough France, which taught the world about color during the Impressionist period, put most of its embroidery energy in recent centuries into plain white lace.

Not so with the Czechs. Here's a Moravian girl (above) in traditional dress. A long time ago Moravia used to be a separate country but is now incorporated into The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Germany.

Elaborate embroidery is often associated with power or status, as it is with these African chiefs (above). It's a mostly woman's art. You could say that it's a gift that women have been giving family members and the powerful for possibly thousands of years. It's a terrific present, but I find myself wondering how people who live in the outback manage to keep it clean. They must sell a lot of stain remover in those countries.

You've probably seen variations of this Pakistani costume (above) before. There's a village there that outdoes everybody in the region.

Here's (above) a small hanging from Tajikistan, which I assume is near Afghanistan. It's mostly blue anchoring down red with an amazing greenish-grey highlight. I've never seen grey used as a highlight color before.

Here (above) a Transylvanian woman wears an outfit consisting of different kinds of wool. The region is still famous for its embroidery but it's transitioning into weaving and other techniques. Embroidery is becoming a lost art; it's just too labor intensive.

Did anyone do more elaborate embroidery than the Chinese? Here's a detail from an official court robe, replete with the dragons, cranes, and traditional flaming pearl. The multiple shades of blue blobs (clouds?) with white highlights are an awesome background for the dragon.

"ANONYMOUS" WRITES ABOUT ELECTRO-SHOCK THERAPY

2009-05-30T23:37:00.000-07:00

I recently wrote a post about electro-shock therapy (ECT) where I also touched on the treatment of people who hear voices. I know nothing about these subjects and I was hoping that someone who did would correct me if I wrote something misleading. Well, someone did! Many thanks to two anonymous commenters for the replies which are re-printed below.

No one is getting forced ECT anymore. It has been a long long time since that sort of thig happened.

ECT is used for severe refractory depression where either drugs and therapy has not worked and the patient agrees, or where the patient is so depressed they have shut down and would need a feeding tube to be placed!

I taught the psychiatry class at our Med College and have since specialized in Anesthesiology and see maybe 10 ECTs a week. They are pretty benign now. The current is much lower, the patient is paralyzed so they can't hurt themselves, and the main side effect is a few hours of confusion and occasionally some "word salad", which is where the patient tries to say something but random words come out. They realize what is going on and you have to tell them that it will only last a little while. Most laugh about it later (A good sign compared to lying in bed starving to death) and one guy actually asked my nurse to record him if he had it again. He did, and she did, and he played it for his family.

The goal of ECT isn't to cure depression, although in the minority of cases it can do that. The goal is to break the untreatable deep depression so that the meds and therapy can work before the person shuts down again.

As for the lady in the video (Liz Spikol, above). Its pretty clear she is having some thought content and process issues. Makes for an interesting show though.

And psychiatrists are not telling people to talk to their voices or that they are "real" in the sense people are making here. They do know that there are neural connections misfiring and the person is actually hearing the voices, so it is "real" in that sense, but they are not having people reason and engage the voices. That does no good. They are having people realize what they are and try to work around them, but not to encourage them to talk to them.

And Jung (above) was crazy. Read his actual writings and it is clear he was as crazy as many of his patients. I wonder if he was doing the Coke like Freud did... may explain it.

And the guy with the Egyptian delusion/myth/whatever you want to call it. How is it unreasonable that the person would be exposed to that? Starting in the 40s and 50s we started seeing tons of alien abductions and alien obsessed delusions, and many were consistent with each other. In Jung's time Egyptology was VERY popular both to the upper classes and the common man. Even if not, the idea that the big visable thing in the sky blows the air around isn't that special.

Here's the second comment, also anonymous:

Hey Uncle Eddie - long time follower, first time commenter... er. I was thinking about your blog on the train today, especially about the entry Mad Pride and the comments by Anonymous. I guess, as with many things, everyone is a little bit right and a little bit wrong about most things. Like Spikol, I have experienced long term major depression which resulted in numerous hospitalisations and on three of those occasions I underwent varying numbers of ECT episodes (the most intensive being 18 treatments over a 6 week period). Unlike Spikol, I was not issued with any incontinence products and fortunately all the staff I ever encountered were most empathetic. However, I did experience headaches, tension in my jaw, disorientation and significant short term (and ultimately long term) memory loss. A number of years later there are still large pockets of memory that I never regained, I believe it has probably been exacerbated by the ECT but I think such a long and entrenched depression has wreaked havoc on my comprehension skills and memory – which provides great opportunities for my siblings to invent histories for me! My protests of “I would never get drunk and fall asleep in the shower recess, missing Christmas dinner and forever disgracing the family” are only half hearted, because I can’t really be sure... but then I am also painfully aware of what my sibling’s idea of fun is too. It can be disconcerting to look at photos of your adult self and not remember the occasion when it was taken. I am aware of a number of people who have benefited from ECT, even though I don’t believe I was one of them. Ah, but there is a happy end note... I am now the most ‘well’ I have been in years thanks to a combination of a therapy program that worked for me and greater access to mental health services and probably good luck: I still find myself weeping sometimes during the news (but that’s probably healthy) and I sometimes become overwhelmed with anxiety (but that’s probably because I’m doing things I haven’t done in years). When I think of my years in ‘the wilderness’ I do feel a sort of pride: In the same way those that have survived a terrifying holiday-from-hell might – so you planned on sun, sea and sand but you got a cyclone, a military-cop, a missing captain and a drunk navigator! You can only wear the scabs and scars of the Bed Bug bites with pride... what else is there do? A note from the Outpost...

MORE FACES TO DRAW

2009-05-28T22:22:00.001-07:00

I thought I'd lead off with a beautiful face (above), but there's more to this face than meets the eye. I'll talk about it later. Hint: it has to do with the muzzle.

An ironic smile (above) which comes off very strong because of the simple, broad, uncomplicated face around it

Above, a Judith Anderson look-alike. Remember Anderson in Hitchcock's "Rebbecca?" What do you think of the tiny mouth made prominent by lipstick, the long nose, the eerie, murderous eyes, and the devilish eyebrows? Don't eat or drink anything she offers, and never, ever spend the night.

An odd face (above) because the features appear to be floating on it.

Some faces (above) just naturally seem to be wide-angled, or CinemaScoped. It doesn't hurt her looks, though.

A good-looking girl (above) caught with disdainful "yuck"wrinkles above the nose. The wrinkles don't cross her nose horizontally, but rather fan out from the eyes. Come to think of it, her nose is oddly vertical, and her hair looks like an askew helmet.

Here's a face (above) that looks like it was pushed out slightly from the inside. This is a fairly common trait.

Here's that face again. Did you figure out what was so unusual about it? It's the muzzle. The mouth is wrapped around a vertical cylinder which is inserted deep into the cheeks. The big lower lip and pointed chin make for interesting embellishments.

Here's (above) a less pronounced version of the same thing. The mouth cylinder is still visible, and it's set off by the teeth and a linear, horizontal eye mask.

Another muzzle cylinder (above), but one which is not buried too deep into the cheeks. The mouth with rounded corners, the V-shaped nasal bridge, and the interesting half-open eyes and flair eyebrows make for a fascinating appearance.

A good-looking woman (above) whose face below the nose recedes inward.

And the opposite (above): a good-looking woman whose face below the mid-point extends outward.

BTW, Thanks to Lester for the correction about the name of the actress in the Hitchcock film.

SHOULD CARTOONS END WITH A MESSAGE?

2009-05-26T22:06:00.000-07:00

I'm always amazed when Saturday Morning cartoons end with an ethical lesson. I mean the cartoon itself is often incredibly unimaginative and intellectually deadening. It's pretty clear that this is the real message of the show, regardless of what's tacked on at the end.

TV producers aren't the bad bad guys. They're just putting on what they think the public wants. It's the public that needs to be educated about cartoons and I think I'll take a shot at that right now. Sorry if I appear to be preaching to the choir.

Good, funny cartoons don't need a message at the end. The whole cartoon is a positive message.

First and foremost, a good cartoon always stimulates the intellect of the viewer, even when the subject matter is stupidity. In the cartoon above Rube Goldberg makes everybody look hilariously awkward but he manages to convey real sentiment as well. The two friends at the top and the married couple below are genuinely touching. This is the power real cartooning has. It can convey deep meaning at the same time it clowns around.

Even the color in a good cartoon is educational. I look at this creek BG above and I'm filled with wonder about the beauty of nature, and of shadow and silhouettes and hidden places. I'm reminded that spots of color in relative darkness can be awesomely mysterious and satisfying. Backgrounds like this remind us of the ability of subtle things to amaze.

Good cartoon color is immensely stimulating, all by itself. An artist will deliberately take two colors that clash and make them work together by adding a third color that relates them. When you first see them you rebel and want to say, "Hey, you can't do that!" but before you can get the thought out, you realize that the color does work. Improbable as it is, the darn thing works. That means the picture has educated you, made you more graphically sophisticated.

It's silly to take a cartoon (above) that never even attempts to do anything like that and praise it to the skies because it has a single positive message tacked on to the end. The cartoon itself is the message. By the time the fake message comes at the end, the real message has found its mark, and that message is sometimes: "Kids, never try to achieve. Do the easy thing. Let your mind go to sleep."

Funny cartoon drawings are often the most stimulating. The dog above is silly and hilarious for sure, but the hilarity forces you to pay more attention to the animal, and when you do you realize that the dog is the very essence of playful good will, energy and loyalty. The drawing exudes life force and seems to say, "Isn't it great to be alive?" It makes you want to be happy and make others happy. It may take a writer a whole book to achieve that, but a cartoonist can do it in a few strokes.

Cartoon drawings often get their effect by innovating or calling our attention to something we'd overlooked before. Here (above) the artist reminds us of the graphic nature of our own bodies, how we ourselves are designs which can be manipulated. Just thinking about this makes me want to draw. Good cartoons create artists, and people who appreciate art.

Can good cartoon drawings make kids think? You bet they can! The two hand drawings above certainly make me think. They increase my awareness of hands as an expressive instrument and fill me with awe to think that the human mind can find such a wealth of possibility in such a commonplace thing as a hand.

This drawing (above) isn't just lampooning one individual. It asks questions about the nature of femininity and beauty. It applies sophisticated design to a joke, and because the drawing is funny the questions it brings up stick in our minds.

There's something about this picture (above) that's...I don't know what to call it...mischievous. It makes me want to acquire skill so I can play jokes on people too. The skill of the humorous artist makes me want to hone my own skill, even if it's not related to art.

It's the job of artists to raise the bar in society. Our achievement in a public forum like TV should inspire others to be good at the things they do. But you can't inspire people if the cartoon is bland, even with a message tacked on to the end.

This (above) is a complex drawing disguised as a simple one. Here two worlds collide. It says a lot about the gulf between different types of people, and encourages us to see the clash of worlds in a humorous light, which is not a bad lesson to teach a kid. The little guy is made to seem rigid and ridiculous for disdaining the offer of friendship. No lengthy lecture. It's accomplished painlessly, in one funny drawing.

Should cartoons have messages tacked on? I can't imagine why. Good cartoons by their nature are already full of messages, even before the end comes along, and they're more nuanced and sophisticated than the phony, tacked-on kind.

WHY DO KIDS DRAW LIKE THAT?

2009-05-24T22:32:00.000-07:00

Like everybody else I'm always surprised by the vitality of art made by kids. Something about collecting bugs and wearing pajamas with feet gives young artists the ability to draw with shocking freshness and immediacy. I don't pretend to know how they do it, but it's been on my mind lately and I thought I'd record my thoughts here.

To start with, surely some of the magic comes from the little rugrats never cleaning their brushes. When they want to paint with yellow they use the same dirty brush they used a minute before when they were painting with red. The kids benefit from a lucky accident because this unintentional mixing gives the new color texture, which always makes color more appealing. Not only that but the sloppy colors benefit from the kind of optical mixing that impressionists like Seurat used to talk about.

Then there's the kid belief that every living thing disturbs the air around them and emits an aura of grief marks or sunbeams (above). Where kids get that from I can't even guess. Exceptions to this rule are army men, ghosts and dinosaurs, which are never granted sunbeams.

Thanks to "N" for pointing out that the picture above is of a lion and the sunbeams are simply its mane. I don't know how I could have overlooked something so obvious, and I almost changed the caption, but my long experience with my own kids' drawings seems to confirm that kids will deliberately choose subjects that lend themselves to sunbeams, cilia and fringe. Primitive masks are often like that.

The subject of kid pictures is never a unified whole, but is rather a collection of parts, which are separate and distinct. The lady above is a nothing more than a dress, legs and shoes. The bike is wheels and a frame. Usually the collection of parts is given grief by some evil being. Here (above) the collection of parts that is the woman is beset by a demon newsboy...or is that just the just the artist hitching a ride?

Here's (above) a raging duck man surrounded by blue dots. Since kids like to menace their their subjects I'll guess that the blue dots are killer bees or bombs. Whatever they are, it's a safe bet that the kid who drew it had a definite idea about what they were. Kids don't draw for the sake of drawing. Everything always represents something.

How do you like the color here? That yellow and orange ground really makes the blue pop out, and the black is a perfect counterpoint.

Here (above) the warship goes into battle with all guns blazing. Kids don't get distracted by nuances like the color of a late afternoon sky reflected in the sea water. For kids a battle scene portrays battle, clear and simple, and the battle is one of epic dimensions. The nobility of the brave ship is honored by cilia-type sunbeams of fire power.

Interesting huh?

EDWARD STEICHEN: GENIUS

2009-05-22T23:16:00.000-07:00

You probably know Edward Steichen for his painting and fine art photography, but did you know that he also helped to create the modern concept of fashion photography? That's his cover above, one of the most well-known in the history of magazine publishing.

Before Steichen fashion pictures looked mostly like this (above). The idea was to highlight the dress. The woman in it was little more than a mannequin.

Steichen had the revolutionary idea that the women wearing the dresses should look interesting, even if sometimes they almost overshadowed the clothes. They should look like they were having fun and like they had lots of friends. The idea was to make the women reading the magazine envy the models.

Steichen was a painter before he was a photographer. The influence of Matisse on the two pictures above is obvious.

Some believe that Steichen was the greatest photographer of women who ever lived. That's Gertrude Lawrence above.

He made women (above) look mysterious and seductive.

He was no slouch with men, either. What do you think of the pictures above? The picture immediately above is of Conrad Veidt, who played Major Strassner in "Casablanca."

When Veidt was young he played horrific parts in films like "Dr. Caligari."

Nice poster, eh? But I digress....

What happened to Steichen you ask? Well, he dropped out of fashion photography when Borodsky introduced Beaten and Horst to Harper's Bazaar. I put up a blog about these guys a couple of weeks ago. Borodsky introduced humorous surrealism to women's magazines and poor Steichen, who was a serious kind of a guy, just couldn't keep up. That's Steichen's attempt at surrealism above. It just wasn't his thing.

Why should men be interested in what happened in womens' magazines in the 20s and 30s? Because those magazines, operating beneath the radar of formal critics, helped to shape the attitudes of modern women, and of the whole world we live in today. That and the fact that these magazines continued the revolution in art that critics supposed had died after WWll.

UNPUBLISHED WOLVERTON

2009-05-19T21:53:00.001-07:00

Have you seen the new Wolverton book, called "The Wolverton Bible?" Most of the book is about his Biblical illustrations done for his church, the same church that used to publish "The Plain Truth" magazine, edited by radio preacher Herbert W. Armstrong. The Bible illustrations are interesting but the real treat is the small last chapter, which contains previously unpublished or under-published drawings from his best period. A few of them can be seen here, above and below.

Of particular interest to me are the ones in the top two pictures, which were among those submitted to Harvey Kurtzman when he was editor of Mad in the fifties, and which Kurtzman declined. Kurtzman published the best of the lot but these just didn't make the final cut.

Publisher William Gaines didn't like Wolverton. He thought the drawings were ugly and tried to talk Kurtzman into dropping them. Fortunately Kurtzman insisted and the masterpieces of gross that we're all familiar with were published, sans the pictures shown here. I can see why these were turned down. They're funny but not as focused and polished as Kurtzman's favorites. Even so, they're still interesting, don't you think?

Some of these sketches were done for Armstrong's church, but were never (or seldom) reprinted anywhere else. Some of the people above were, believe it or not, depictions of character types Wolverton found in his own congregation.

Armstrong reportedly tried to talk Wolverton out of cartooning and into serious illustration. He said there was no future in it because cartooning had run its course and would soon die. Actually cartooning thrived in the fifties, thanks to the efforts of artists like Wolverton.