Remembering Archie
by Dan Nadel
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Art by Harry LuceyAbout six weeks ago I strolled over to MoCCA here in New York to see The Art of Archie Comics, an exhibition devoted to “one of the oldest and most beloved family-friendly brands in the comic book industry.” There are some fine Harry Lucey pages. Gorgeous Dan DeCarlo examples. But something is missing on the walls: art credits. There are no attributions to be found except on a rather confusing handout available by request at the desk. What little information there is about the material on display is written in a kind of corporate press-release speak, filled with misinformation (or outright untruths, like the notion that John Goldwater was the sole creator of Archie) and nicely omitting (a) the notoriously shabby way the company treated its artists (artists who still don’t receive credit in the various reprints) and (b) the rather “interesting” fact that the company has retained all, or most, of its original art.
To me, this is dark, sad stuff. Archie Comics has a great artistic legacy—one worth examining. But it’s been over two decades since the Kirby v. Marvel fight, and over a decade since the nasty business over Dan DeCarlo came to light. We all understand (or should) the financial and moral issues at play and I’m not going to reprise them here. In the case of DeCarlo, a man who made Archie millions of dollars was fired in his twilight years and denied any share in the characters he created. It’s somewhat grotesque to use his work to “celebrate” the company without even acknowledging the issues at play. Was DeCarlo’s family invited to contribute to or comment on the show? Were any of the deceased artists’ families asked?
I was reluctant to even write this piece, since, in some ways, it’s barely worth addressing. Obviously the Archie show is not intended as history in any intellectually serious way, but it’s hosted and organized by MoCCA, which is, in fact, the only “museum” of comics on the East Coast. I happily curated a show at MoCCA and support its mission in the abstract. The medium needs institutional support. But it needs to be serious support. This startling lack of scholarship and disregard for the moral rights of artists was, I imagine and hope, unconscious and not malicious—I doubt anyone at MoCCA even knew about or researched the situation. But that’s not much of an excuse.
I wrote to MoCCA with questions about all of the above issue, but aside from an invitation to come to the museum and chat, which I couldn’t fit into my schedule, I wasn’t able to get a response via email or phone.
Situations like this are complicated. MoCCA is cash-strapped and I would imagine (well, I hope) that MoCCA received some kind of donation for hosting the show. Museums are hardly temples of virtue and must work with corporate sponsors to survive. The problem here, though, is that the museum is actually furthering a historically and morally dubious agenda. But look, what am I going to do about it? As a publisher, I plan to exhibit at the MoCCA Festival because it’s part of my business, despite, in some ways, my reluctance to support the program anymore. So I don’t exactly have much moral ground.
Giving MoCCA the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume The Art of Archie Comics is part of a steep learning curve, and that the museum and its board will, in the future, look more closely at the issues at play around historical work and try a bit harder to remember men like Dan DeCarlo.
Labels: Archie, bummers, Dan DeCarlo, Jack Kirby, MoCCA
From the point of view of people interested in the history of comics (and aware of things like the Marvel/Kirby art controversy, etc.), this is an issue that will have an all-too-familiar and depressing ring to it. But let's also look at it from the point of view of museums. What MoCCA has done (going by your report) would be a cause for scandal at other museums. (For example, look at the recent conflict-of-interest controversy at the New Museum.) Getting credit wrong or omitting authorship and ownership from the labels for displayed artwork is really frowned on in museums. It means that he museum is failing its public. Museums have an educational mission. Indeed, MoCCA acknowledges this on their webpage: "It is the mission of the museum to promote the understanding and appreciation of comic and cartoon art as well as to detail and discuss the artistic, cultural, and historical impact of what is the world's most popular art form." Implied in a mission statement like this is a commitment to scholarship and accuracy.
And here's what is personally annoying about it. I want comics to be recognized as art in a society that is reluctant to do so. One way to help this recognition happen is to have museums (whether devoted to comics or not) exhibit important comics artwork. But for this to succeed, our museums have to meet the same ethical and scholarly standards that are expected of all museums. MoCCA seems to have failed this time.
The negativity of these kind of comments bores me to death. It's always easy to write smething negative. Dan says…
I was reluctant to even write this piece, since, in some ways, it's barely worth addressing.
You know what … he shouldnt have wasted his time. Everyone knows that Dan has a thing about MoCCA and all he does is slam the museum. In a perverted way – he see's himself as somehow in competition with them?
And what is with all these comments about credit to authors and for artwork… There have been many group shows that are not so academically documented. It's a comic museum – not the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The museum does a great job of getting the message of cartoon out to the public. It can do better, but no one else is doing anything – so lighten up and give them some credit rather than all the criticism. Something is wrong when an article like that doesnt have a single positive thing to say. What do you think Dan – the show was a total waste of time??? Do you remember what MoCCA was like as recently as 2 years ago??
If you dont like what they are doing – stay at home. Why dont you review some of your own product. It needs some work.
Just to clarify something that shouldn't need it — I want MoCCA to succeed. I happily curated the Mazzucchelli show there just last summer. Doesn't mean that something like this shouldn't be written about. The rest of George's comment is I guess a parody of cranks or something? Gotta be.
Parody of cranks ? What are you talking about?
I dont have aproblem with writing about the Archie show. I didnt have high hopes for it but was pleasantly surprised when I saw it.
My point is that your review is 100% negative – which is not justified – and that is a crank.
Further – you shouldnt be using an image of a Pep comic. Did you get permission from Archie to use their copyright imagery? I would guess not – because there is an arrogance in your writing that anyone can ee.
I visited the Mazzucchelli exhibit last summer. The art and panels were great. The background and documentary writing about the show was lacking. I would have liked to see more. There was almost nothing there.
Dan, in the future, if you are curating any additional shows, please provide some more research and informative background.
Choosing artwork is the easy part. Writing something informative is what takes the work.
Many thanks.
It's interesting that neither of you are even attempting to refute Dan's points.
I don't expect Mocca to turn around and rip into Archie's business practice, but at the minimum museums should get attribution right.
If a Lichtenstein exhibit had examples of the comics he cribbed from, and they didn't attribute it, I'd say "Well that's in the grey area of due diligence." But if they said Lichtenstein actually drew those original comics, that would be an embarrassing error.
As for the crankish comment above, use of the "Pep" cover falls under Fair Use. It's Fair Use was designed for. There's nothing arrogant about using it.
You know, I'm really getting tired of the negativity of some of these comments on blog posts. It bores me to death. It's always easy to write something negative.
All they do is slam Dan Nadel. It's as if they see themselves somehow in competition with the Comics Comics Mag bloggers.
If you don't like what he is saying, stay at home and off the internet and off of his particular web magazine. Or wait, maybe go away from home so that way you won't be forced to read his internet ramblings.
My point is that your blog comments are 100% negative – which is not justified – and that is a crank. Or something.
Ok, so I probably shouldn't poke fun at people, but honestly.
I noticed no one commented on the lack of serious materials associated with the Maz… show. It was a big disappointment, which is one of the reasons that the show did not get as much mdia attention as it should have. It was not seriously curated.
In fact – the Archie show has had a lot of media coverage. My guess is it has been good for the museum. It can be related to be regular people – not just comic freaks who ponder their navels, or usually something lower.
Give it a rest. If you dont like the museum, or the way they produce shows – then dont go !
Hey E.H.
Is it ok to publish negative blogs – but not ok to publish a negaive review of a negative blog?
This thread is like a museum exhibit of Internet argumentation, 1998.
E.H. – are you Dan Nadel?
Dan,
If you are reluctant to exhibit at the Mocca Festival, then why bother? Dont you have any backbone? If you dont like the place and always criticize it, then pass it by. There are a growing number of indie shows. Put your money where your mouth is and take it elsewhere. There is an old Indian saying. Put up or shut up. I learned that in an Amazing Fantasy comic when I was a kid. Always loved that line.
I'm being punked! Anyhow, anonymous, I'm pretty sure I'm not calling for the downfall of MoCCA. I like MoCCA — I enjoy setting up at the fair, even if I wish I felt better about the standards of the Archie show. It's a compromised business everywhere and I'm not Ian MacKaye.
Also, good heavens David, there were multiple wall texts and an essay for the Mazzucchelli show. There couldn't have been any more text without crowding the art. But yes, next time I'll record an audio book just for you.
Comparing lack of info at the Mazzucchelli show vs. lack of info at the archie show is a dumb way to argue dan's post.
because the Mazzucchelli show clearly said "the art of David Mazzucchelli" all over the place.
dans post seems to say "hey, if you're gonna exhibit this stuff as art, how about treating the people who drew it as artists and not continuing with the exploitation they've dealt with for years."
but of course the minute you bring this stuff up—comic artists getting credit for work—people will argue with you on EVERYTHING except that point. sad and points to the amazingly conservative attitudes of most comics people. more into the characters than the artists.
its not about "if you dont like it dont go!" what a terrible argument. its about "if you put up peoples art, credit them."
Hey – no one s arguing against credits – but lets face t. It is more about the character than the artist. If you think otherwise, you have your head in the sand. Did Siderman make i to where it is today because of the original art, or because of the compelling character? I'm not trying to denegrate Lee's artwork – but the character is whats key.
One of the points is not that there werent credits. It is Dan's ridiculous post with nothing positive to say about what is frankily, a good show.
Too bad Dan didnt have time to squeeze a meeting into his schedule ! Ha ! If he was serious about what he does, he would make the time.
Of course the Maz show was different. It was a one person show – but there was little intellectual commentary added despite what Dan says. The art was great, which masked the poor quality of the curatorial work.
Frankly, I see Dan's musings as childish and spiteful. I dont know what he is spiteful about but he seems only focused onthe negatives – like he see's the world in shades of grey rather than in color. It would be wonderful if Dan could tak a more positve approach to life – it would serve him well. He seems always so downtrodden
Dan
Go get a pizza pie on me ! 🙂 I think you need to eat better today.
"Did Siderman make i to where it is today because of the original art, or because of the compelling character? I'm not trying to denegrate Lee's artwork – but the character is whats key."
!!!!!!!
This must be exhibit #1 that this is a parody, as Dan said. If not, it's really really sad…
…but anyway. Dan–I totally agree with you (I've always found the lack of credits on the reprints scandalous–not to mention that reprint of a 70s comic that originally had mentioned "Dan DeCarlo"–which in the reprint was changed to "the artist of this comic" or something like that)–but I wonder if you might not be mistaken about one thing: I have never heard of Archie keeping all the original art, and given all the Archie art that is usually available on eBay, I find it hard to believe that is the case… From what I recall, I'm pretty sure that, after DeCarlo's death, his family had (and may still have) a lot of his original art on hand, which they were trying to sell.
sorry – Lee art directed – didnt create. No matter, the character is the key more than the artwork.
Go get a pizza pie
Archie is way behind the times in terms of attributing credit where it is due and known. Simpsons comics attribute. Nickelodeon comics did. Disney comics do. Siderman comics do and did even when Lee was art director. 🙂
It comes off like a cranky stubbornness. What's more irksome though is that MoCCA didn't follow through on the issue. I give them the benefit of the doubt too, but it's very disappointing.
Dan, which room/wall has the Lucey?
cd
This is extremely disappointing. Has MoCCA responded in any way?
I agree with Dan, I have actually seen the show twice and what was most interesting to me was the contrast in styles the artists were able to infuse into the Archie characters. I have been so impressed with the exhibitions at MoCCA the last couple of years that I got a membership. Truth be told it was the Mazzucchelli exhibit that I knew I would be returning to that inspired me to give MoCCA my money. So saying Dan is anti-MoCCA I feel isn't accurate. Also Dan just had what people were calling a mini-MoCCA here in Brooklyn recently. What I took from Dan's post was not entirely negative but rather hey MoCCA has raised the bar of what we come to expect, and yes we understand and support MoCCA having an exhibition that was paid for by a sponsor but that does that mean the curator is completely silenced. Can Archie's art and history serve as a fascinating exhibit on it's own-whether it be to champion the work or explore the hardships and controversies. Or are we content with a 75 year old commercial. I would have enjoyed more information on the creators. Jude Killory
mini-mocca in Brooklyn? what was that about ?
'Mini-MoCCA' was this. So, I think you could indeed say that Dan put his money where his mouth is.
Oh Dan, you're such a "Reggie."
I think what's scandalous is that you guys allow anonymous posts here. It's like a welcome mat for insupportable opinions. Nothing says, "my opinion is valueless" like "I have no discernible identity."
shut up
"If a person feels he can't communicate, the least he can do is shut up about it."
-Tom Lehrer
When I saw the show opening night there were no artists ID's and I was very disturbed by this and questioned several of the people associated with the show. They said the cards had arrived late but would be put up later. I understand there are now artist IDs on the walls but this is still not a confidence booster.
Hmm, I saw the show Dec. 8. It opened November 19. That's a long delay. I haven't heard anything to the contrary from MoCCA (or any explanations about the history, etc.), so I don't know if there are now artist IDs on the wall or not.
I'm a MoCCA member who supports the museum and the MoCCA Festival (even though they’re not perfect) because I want them to survive and hope they will grow bigger and better. I believe CONSTRUCTIVE criticism can spur positive growth.
It’s my understanding that MoCCA is currently a guest-curated museum. In other words, the museum relies on people like Dan to research and put the exhibits together. MoCCA apparently gives its guest curators considerable leeway in staging the exhibits (but maybe Dan can provide more insight on what guidelines or restrictions, if any, he was given when mounting the Mazzucchelli exhibit I enjoyed so much).
Did the curators of the Archie exhibit purposely relegate artistic credits to a handout that must be requested by visitors? If so, why (and is that an acceptable curatorial choice)? Would this exhibit be enhanced by addressing issues surrounding Archie Comics treatment of Dan DeCarlo and other artists? Is there an accepted minimal standard for handling creator credits for comics art at museums? If so, what is it? If not, why not? Whether you believe Dan has an axe to grind with MoCCA or not, I think these are valid issue for a critical discussion that could benefit MoCCA and other museums.
It also occurs to me that one way for MoCCA to address issues of artistic attribution and relations at Archie Comics (without changing the exhibit) would be to host lectures or panels (perhaps including past and/or present creators) to add context.
Even if every show at MOCCA is guest-curated, that doesn't absolve them from the responsibility of having complete wall labels.
Typically a wall label would ahve the following information.
Name of the artist
Year of birth and death
Nationality
Title of work
Year the work was created
Medium
In addition, museums usually list the owner of the work, or if the work was donated to the museum, the name of the donor.
Sometimes wall-labels will have more information, but one runs the risk of telling the viewer what to think. (Personally, I hate overly informative, wordy wall-labels.)
Comics museums are different from art museums. But the basic wall label/vitrine label format seems to me to be as valid and necessary for a comics museum as it is for an art museum.
A few quick answers:
-The Archie show is co-curated by the Chairman of MoCCA, Ellen Abramowitz.
-It's not just a matter of placards on a wall, it's about acknowledging the complexities of credit (i.e. the Goldwater statement) and comics history. Whether a show is enhanced by that knowledge is beside the point. It's a museum's responsibility to at least nod towards historical matters in dispute.
-Again, I have zero axes to grind with MoCCA. I would just like to see more attention paid to these issues by our museums and other institutions.
MoCCA has had attribution cards posted for at least a month ! Why doesnt someone simply go and check out the museum, or call them with the question.
When Dan says that "he couldnt fit it into his schedule", to meet with MoCCa to discuss this, and then goes on to make such accusations that there are no attributions, that is slipshod reporting. Whether its attributed or not is not the issue here —- it is also about the quality of reporting, which is not evident.
I want to avoid this discussion somehow becoming about me, so I'll clarify a few things one last time and then step away.
1) I wrote three emails to MoCCA and was not able to get answers to any of my questions (all contained in the original post). When I was at MoCCA I asked about wall attributions and there was no hint that they were forthcoming. I don't see how my inability to return to the museum itself has anything to do with it. I did my due diligence and did not receive any indication that things had changed, despite the fact that I was clear that I intended to review the show.
2) For at least the first 3 weeks of the show there were no wall attributions at all and my initial post makes it clear that I'm writing from a single experience of the show some weeks back.
3) If there are such attributions now, then fantastic. Despite my queries I never heard that this was the case.
4) The bulk of my post is about an educational institution's responsibility. It has to at least nod at contentious issues surrounding the material on display. To whit, those issues include: Crediting Goldwater as the creator of Archie; the mistreatment of Dan DeCarlo and display of his artwork; Archie's current warehouse of original art dating back to the 1940s. Archie is the only company, as far as I know, to have continued to hold onto original art.
No one is saying that MoCCA should have taken an ax to Archie. Not at all. But there is an inherent responsibility to acknowledge, if not explore, the issues relating to the artwork on display.
To ask for anything less is silly. You can rag on this blog or me all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. I support MoCCA and I want it to succeed, which is why I didn't post this for a month after initially seeing the show. I was hoping for a response from the museum. But, so it goes, and hopefully it'll be better the next time around.
I don’t see comics museums as different FROM art museums – they’re just a different TYPE of art museum (maybe ones with a good slice of library mixed in). Otherwise, I agree with what Robert identified as typical for museum labels. If necessary to save space, I could do without Nationality if that allowed recognition for inkers, colorists and letterers in comics works where applicable. I’d like to see labels like that not only at MoCCA but for comics exhibitions everywhere. And I happen to like wordy labels and explanatory text because I see each exhibit as the presentation of a specific curatorial thesis and part of a greater dialogue. For that same reason, although I’d PREFER to see controversial matters at least acknowledged, I don’t feel exhibit curators are obligated to do so (of course, undisputed factual errors should be corrected). As we’ve seen with High & Low, Masters of American Comics, and now Archie, curators present their own viewpoints and beliefs and biases which viewers, like Dan as well as other scholars and curators, are welcome to note, criticize and dispute. You give the same subject or even the exact same pieces of artwork to ten different curators and you’re going to get ten different exhibits… and that’s fine by me.
Of course as much art and writing credit info as possible should be included in any show, regardless in which museum or gallery exhibit area it might take place.
That said, Goldwater in fact DID create the Archie concept in comics. Long before any of the famous creative names later joined his staff, he was inspired by the teen comedy templates used in films and the New York theatre.
He converted the Andy Hardy type universe to the print medium, while of course fully encouraging all employees, including Montana and DeCarlo, to add touches from their own school day memories.
However, his huge success in allowing his artists to do so should in no way later exclipse his ground-breaking accomplishment, which seems to be the goal of many recent wrong-headed revisionists.
I also see the same kind of nonsense being mouthed by the "Finger – not Kane – created Batman" crowd out there.