UNIDENTIFIED "CORTO MALTESE" PANEL, BY HUGO PRATT (spot illustration in "Graphis" #159):

There is so much to love about this panel -- it's a minimalist masterpiece. Something about the Italians -- they ink like murderers. Pratt has absolutely ripped this picture up with the crudity of his brush- and pen-strokes; it looks almost like it could be a piece of blotter paper, such is the seemingly random bluntness of the markmaking. The starkness is breathtaking. Black and white has never looked better, and the miserly amount of lines used to create a figure drawing and background makes pretty much every American comic in existence look pathetically overcooked by comparison.
But beyond the incredible economy of the picture is as much consideration as any panel could have. The spare contrast of the deep blacks and shocking whites and the precise exactitude of each line's placement evinces a remarkable understanding of light and shadow in their most challenging environment -- water. The result of Pratt's high-volume brushwork, where the shadows of body curves and drapery are barely distingushable, is not only the most true-to-life image of submersion I've ever seen in comics, it also provides the blanching shock of a cannonball into the briny deep, the contraction of the skin that even the most hardened human beings feel when cold fluid immerses them. This is a picture that communicates volumes not only in technique and storytelling, but also in sensation.
RESULT:

Eh... so I'm not Hugo Pratt. Without his incredible ability to slam those blacks down exactly where they belong, all I could do was make my interpretation a little more illustrative. There's a lot of drama in Pratt's picture, which I tried to bring into a little more focus. I also tried to play around with depicting a little more of the figure's motion.
"THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD" #35, PAGE 7 PANEL 3, BY JOE KUBERT:

The big draws here are obvious: first of all, Joe Kubert's moody, classically-oriented composition, about as far from typical Silver Age "point of impact" storytelling as you can get. The extreme verticality of the panel prefigures Neal Adams (and everyone whose layouts were influenced by Neal Adams), but the stormy blacks, which impinge even on the caption box, belong to a province occupied only by Kubert himself. And the utter absence of anything in between Hawkman and the ground is almost vertigo-inducing.
Then there's the gorgeously impressionistic color work. Probably originally Jack Adler's, it's raised to new heights by the reconstruction work of the Digital Chameleon studio, who provide a great blue fade that doubles the drawing's vertiginous effect, pick the exact right shade of red for the figures (almost a stained-glass color, really selling the biblical reference of the composition), and making the ground literally glow, turning it into a sentient menace that physically casts its promise of destruction up at the falling Hawks.
And that's actually my favorite part of the picture; the ground. There's something haunting, evocative, about that Herriman-ish landscape. It's almost space-age in a bizarre way, the grain silo looming in the background of a slice of the earth which doesn't look like it's been trod by any humans for a very long time. Here it is in close-up for you:

RESULT:

Lacking any pieces of paper that thin, I decided to give a little more expressiveness to Kubert's black sky, push the stained-glass coloring approach further, and spend some quality time with that landscape. I dug the caption too (Gardner Fox), so I kept that in there as well.
"BATMAN" #181, PAGE 2 PANEL 1, BY SHELDON MOLDOFF:

It's a fine picture -- introduces the characters in an interesting way, the cartooning isn't bad -- but I mean, I have Batman comics by everyone from Quitely to Infantino and I certainly don't need to look at a Sheldon Moldoff picture if I don't want to. No, what turned me on here was the ersatz concept of it all -- fetishized supervillainess pin-ups as "sensational pop art". (Bob Kanigher wrote the script.) It's a concept that instantly gives the story as much style and zing as any Marvel "Pop Art Production" from the same period, as well as one that begs to be given a contemporary update.
RESULT:

It's 2010...

2 comments:
Like the copies a lot. I know this is comics sacrilege but I like the bird one better than the original... may have to do with the shape of the panel too. Very nice.
The last example is interesting to me because it is sort of a stretch to me to say that it's inspired by the Batman panel, but what I think is interesting is the concept of the Batman panel as being the soft-core porn of its era and your more brazen collage being the soft core porn of now. To me it is an interesting comment on the way that comics have long used images that are racy for their times. To think that a Batman comic with these images - so iconic, but still very pinup style - was read by children kind of raises the question "Where do you draw the line? What should be in a kid's comic now?"
Yeah, food for thought. Especially given young Dick Grayson's in-panel reaction to the pinups in the Moldoff panel. I dunno, I certainly wouldn't let my kids read a comic with my version of the panel in it, but I probably would let them read the comic that inspired it. Chalk it up to changing times, and the general sexual permissiveness of the mid-1960s. As for the state of today's kids comics, I'd say it probably looks much the same as then, but with the girls drawn a little more "modern" (read: blonde, bigger breasts, and tackier-looking).
You do raise an interesting question, though: how many superhero artists with a speciality in drawing sexy girls (Nick Cardy, for one, comes to mind) were at all aware that they were probably providing legions of prepubescent boys with their first sexual feelings? A question to ask Jim Lee, if I ever interview him....
Post a Comment