Marshall Rogers
by Frank Santoro
Thursday, January 10, 2008
I found this convention sketch in a box at my mom’s house the other day. I’d forgotten all about it. I paid 15 bucks for it back in ’87, and I remember thinking that was a fortune. Too bad I barely remember anything about my interaction with Marshall Rogers himself. I only remember watching in amazement as he made these little marks on the paper when he started, little dashes that I quickly realized were for figuring out proportion. As soon as he had those marks down he was off to the races, and the drawing came to life literally in a matter of minutes. When he tore it out of the pad and handed it over to me, I do remember feeling a little gypped — but looking at it now, I think, good grief, it’s awesome, how did he knock it out that fast?
I showed this drawing to my friend Jim Rugg and we started talking about the sort of stylized naturalism that Rogers was known for. And then Jim said, “Y’know, the hackiest hack who worked for Marvel in the early ’60s had a better sense of basic figure drawing and naturalism than almost any contemporary cartoonist.” We both wracked our brains trying to come up with a modern equivalent to, say, Don Heck. And we couldn’t! Who draws in a non-photo-referenced, natural, realistic style? Okay, Jaime Hernandez. But who else? Everyone we came up with didn’t seem to fit. Michael Golden? No, too stylized. Beto? No, too cartoony. Jason Lutes? No, too stiff. There isn’t this sort of basic non-photo-ref’d style that’s in widespread use anymore. I’m sure if I really thought about it I could find an artist and point to their work and say, “Here, this guy.” But the fact is styles change, tastes change, and so do abilities and schools of thought. Photo-referencing rules the roost these days in “realistic-looking” comics, and I hate it. Gimme Don Heck instead. Or Rogers. He might’ve used some photo-referencing here and there, but he had it down and didn’t have to take photo after photo of his friends posing and then thinly disguise it as comics. I mean, have you read Coyote? What? You haven’t? What are you waiting for?
Labels: Don Heck, Drawing Styles, Jaime Hernandez, Jason Lutes, Jim Rugg, Marshall Rogers, Michael Golden
I’d be happy to reimburse you the $15, and take that shoddy “sketch” off your hands.
Adrian Tomine?
Adrian’s a good choice, the subtlety and nuance of his expressions are dead on. But, for me, he doesn’t fit the kind of of mold Jim and I were discussing. The guys who did Crime and Monster and Superhero comics back in the 50s and 60s had a sort of dynamic tension in their figures. Think Ogden Whitney, think Wally Wood. It’s a style that was so commonplace, this bland illustration vibe married to this fluid movement. It’s like they took Kirby and Meskin’s dynamic movements and made turned up the “realism.”
Wood had fluid movement? He’s one of my favorites, but I don’t know if I agree with that.
Still, this post makes you my hero, Frank, as you already know.
Allred?- Or is he too stylized?
Wood had a sort of “interior” tension. Interesting angles. Movement across the page. He was stiff, sure. But for me there’s more fluidity in him than in Tomine. But that’s just personal taste.
Man, I just picked up those Kirby Challengers of the Unknown from the 50s where Wood inks Kirby. Unbelievable. For whatever reason, I never had those issues and recently found a 70s DC reprint in a dollar bin.
Mike Allred is an interesting choice. He definitely channels that 50s Sci-Fi vibe. But rarely are there people out of costume or in a “natural” environment, so the rules of the game sort of change. I do like his stuff but sort of wish, I dunno, that he could just do a ten page Twilight Zone style story without people in costume, y’know?
Yeah, the Kirby/Wood combination works surprisingly well. Their collaboration on the Sky Masters strip isn’t quite as fun to read as Challengers, but it’s beautiful to look at.
I’ve been thinking a bit more about the Wally Wood thing, what Tim said about him not being so fluid, and I don’t want to split hairs, just point out that there was a very common shared language and that it’s not in usage much any longer. This style has been adopted and augmented by countless contemporary cartoonists –but the fact remains that in the 50s and 60s it took a keen eye to differentiate between practitioners of the various “house styles”…that all seemed, to me at least, to combine this bland illustration style with the “action” inherent in 40s costumed hero comics.
Look out Harry Nabors, I’m on a roll.
Rick Altergott!!
Pia Guerra
Cliff Chiang?
“Y’know, the hackiest hack who worked for Marvel in the early ’60s had a better sense of basic figure drawing and naturalism than almost any contemporary cartoonist.”
Huh? This seems like an absurd statement to me. The best at Marvel were certainly great… Gene Colan, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko notably. But the worst hack at Marvel had a better sense of basic figure drawing than, say, Frank Cho? Reed Waller? Dave Stevens? Frank Stack? Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. If you weren’t misquoted, Mr. Rugg, you should really read some more comics!
Steven Stwalley
stwallskull.com
Frank Cho, Dave Stevens, and Reed Waller know how to make a very specific kind of stylized drawing. That has nothing to do with being able to really draw. I think what Jim is saying is that Heck, et al could ground a figure in space and give it an expression. The artists above can emulate old pulp styles, but there’s nothing inside of the drawing. It’s soulless stuff. Darwyn Cooke has a similar problem. It’s a different problem than the photorealists like Alex Maleev, who simply don’t “draw”–they transpose photos–but it’s related — favoring a particular kind of artifice (good girl art, noir film) over nuts and bolts drawing.
“Frank Cho, Dave Stevens, and Reed Waller know how to make a very specific kind of stylized drawing. That has nothing to do with being able to really draw.”
Dan, I have no idea what you’re talking about. They sure look like they can draw pretty damn well to me, each one in their own unique style… and I could name a whole lot more current artists that I think are better at life drawing than Ditko, let alone a Marvel hack (Colan is as good as anyone ever, in my view). Reed Waller is imitating an old pulp style? At least he isn’t imitating Jack Kirby, like the Marvel hacks were!
I guess I don’t know about art but I know what I like. Apparently, you guys must REALLY like old Marvel comics. What about Stack, who wasn’t on your list? The guy is an art professor for pete’s sake!
As long as I’m commenting, I love the hell out of Art Out of Time… thanks Dan!
Steven Stwalley
stwallskull.com
Well, Frank did say that he was sure there were artists that would fit; he just couldn’t think of any off-hand.
I also agree that the Rugg quote is an overstatement, but I doubt it was meant to be taken as law.
This is all a matter of opinion, but I personally think Tomine, Allred, and Stack all qualify. I haven’t seen enough of Cho or Waller to say.
I agree that Cho, Stevens, Maleev can all draw very well and have a great sense of what it is they want to accomplish. If you place their comics side by side with an Ogden Whitney romance comic you can see what I’m getting at in this post. An artist like Whitney could make it all up from his head and use the occasional reference as a guide –and filtered it through this particular style that was very common in the 50s and 60s. Thats the point of this little diversion. And I’m commenting on my particular taste. I’m not interested in Cho, Stevens et al. Their stuff doesn’t MOVE me at all.
I hear what Frank’s saying, and his point has merit. I totally agree that some B-grade silver age era guys had a graceful ‘realistic touch’ to their comic work and also that it seems obvious they didn’t have to rely on photos. But maybe as a comparison to evaluate just how good those guys were –and what a total HACK Fine Artist Roy Lichtenstein was in contrast, check this out: http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html.
In practically every example the original lowly comic source work is better proportioned, inked, framed and lettered. Supposedly throwaway comic work that has way more vibrancy that the exalted taste maker. Just to give this thread a different perspective.
Oh no, Chris, don’t bring ol’ Roy into it! I actually really like Lichtenstein’s work a lot. The difference between him and his source material is this: he thought to make elegant, “crappy” looking images on big canvases. And he did it well. Sure there are some moral issues here, but I always kinda feel like people miss the rather brilliant conceptual leap that Lichtenstein made. He re-contextualized the stuff, and that counts for something. Anyhow, I can’t/won’t get into an argument about what “good” drawing is, but let’s just say that it’s not just about nice figure drawing. Just ask Picasso. Or Frank. The fact that the name Frank Cho is even on this blog is pretty horrifying.
But did you guys know that the guy Lichtenstein appropriated from heavily –the war stuff…was his sergeant from the Army, Irv Novick, whom Roy apparently hated and copied his stuff to get back at him for treating him like shit in the army!!
Actually, now that I think of it, even though I really like Tomine and Stack’s art, they probably don’t fit that well with what Frank’s talking about. I still think Allred does, though. I am going to bow out now, though, because I may be misunderstanding this whole concept.
What’s your source on that again, Frank?
Jasper Johns.
I don’t know about Lichtenstein hating Novick — I’ve never heard of that before — but according to Jones’s Men of Tomorrow, they did serve in the same army unit. FWIW.
I’m gonna say Pia Guerra again. Although I know nothing about her actual technique or method, it seems that her work really fits what Frank seems to be talking about. Seriously. Stylistically her stuff can be a turn-off initially… but what comic can you think of that told a story with the pictures as well a Y? Great sense of place and characters; storytelling that just flows. Good Comics. Easy to read. I can do 200 pages at a sitting of this stuff, and when I think about that, yeah, that’s really only ever been true of old dudes like Sal Buscema.
Hey Marc
Thanks for checking in. I’m embarrassed to say that I’ve never read Pia Guerra. I looked her up online and immediately I saw what you are getting at. I’ll have to check out “Y.” Thanks!
Frank,
Oh, man, I won’t even get started on Marshall Rogers. That guy was freaking massive! I’ve been building up to a Cap’n Quick and a Foozle weekend read-in…
It doesn’t get more subjective than what moves you, or what one considers soulless, so I won’t even get into that ethereal realm. Each to their own.
As far as technical ability, there are clearly a multitude of modern guys who can draw the pants off of a Marvel hack from the sixties. I’m not a fan at all of Frank Cho’s comics writing (Liberty Meadows is unreadable to me), but his artwork is top notch, and his sense of anatomy looks pretty dead on to me. That a person draws cheesecake is a lousy justification for dismissing their technical skill. It’s rather like dismissing someone’s work for having superheroes in it.
I suppose Stevens and Cho may use photo reference frequently, I don’t know. Dismissing work because it uses photo reference seems strange anyhow, since there is no way to know for certain if an artist has used photo reference or not without asking them or having knowledge of the photos. Stevens’ and Cho’s styles certainly come across in their work, regardless. I picked them because they both are highly technically skilled and have keen eyes for anatomy. I’d be very surprised if some of the old Marvel guys you dig didn’t use photo reference as well… photo references have always been pretty standard in the mainstream comic industry.
Waller and Stack I’m under the impression both have done extensive life drawing, which was why they seemed like good choices.
The point I’m trying to make, however, was not these specific artists are better than a sixties Marvel hack, but rather that the modern comic scene is bursting with people who are better than a sixties Marvel hack. It seems to me you really must be seeing a very narrow view of comics if you can’t think of plenty of examples (or you really like sixties Marvel hacks, in which case, more power to you).
Tomine and Jamie Hernandez are indeed great examples. You want more modern examples? “Who draws in a non-photo-referenced, natural, realistic style?” Again, I don’t know if they use photo reference or not:
Dan Clowes? Dave Sim? Charles Vess? Jason Lutes? Jessica Abel? Spain? Paul Chadwick? Jason Little? Rick Geary? James Sturm? Geoff Darrow? Jaques Tardi? Steve Rude? J.H. Williams III? Mark Schultz? Crumb? P. Craig Russell? I could go on and on (definitely don’t feel a need to comment on each of these artists… I’m just trying to make a point.). Heck, there tons of guys who I have no idea who they are drawing for the mainstream books who draw a lot better natural, realistic comics than the hackiest Marvel hack from the sixties.
Perhaps I am missing what you are getting at, guys? If you’re trying to think of a modern cartoonist who draws in an approximation the house style of an early sixties Marvel artist, that would be a lot harder to think of examples of. Regardless of the point you are making, though, the “hackiest hack” quote is not very likely to help you make it.
Thanks, Steven. I hear everything you’re saying. Great points all around. I think we might even be saying the same thing sort of. I love just about all the artists you mention.
Marc, don’t tell people about Cap’n Quick and The Foozle!! I’m trying to buy up all the worlds copies and drive up the price! ONE OF MY FAVORITE COMICS OF ALL TIME. I just gave it to Ben Jones recently and he flipped!
Pia will be in my upcoming Inkstuds art show, and actually on the show later this month.
OK… my comment got ate… 2nd attempt…
I’m seriously considering approaching his estate about doing a CQ & F collection… so, like don’t jump my claim man. But, hey, fan those fires.
Thats awesome. I’ll be first in line to write a glowing review. Cap’n Quick and the Foozle…truly ahead of its time. And altho that phrase gets thrown around alot –it totally applies here, in spades.
You can write the intro. I expect at least a cover blurb.
Great news! Due in 2008: Fantagraphics presents the Complete Cap’n Quick and the Foozle. Hardcover with attached pedestal and bonus TCJ criticism for why it’s not worth your time!
Jacob, I really want to say something rude here, but since I don’t really know you apart from the fact that you have my old job, I can’t really make it sting enough. Do they still publish the Journal? What’s the circulation like on that? I haven’t seen it in any bookstore or comic shop in years. Ah, yeah, ok. That felt better. Cap’n Quick is actually quite good. Maybe you should read it.
What is this the TCJ message board? At least this exchange got Jacob to make his first post here! What’s up, man? When’s the new Beasts book coming out? Is Jon Vermilyea in it?
Marc, you have me mistaken for someone else as I don’t have your old job. I didn’t accept any of the old baggage when I went to Fantagraphics.
Still and all, Yes, they do still publish the Journal although I have nothing to do with it. (I’m confused by your wording though– the Journal was on your Best Of 2007 list so you must know Fanta still publishes TCJ.)
Frank! How can you say that!? I’m a Frequent Flier of ComicsComics Club Airlines. Tim Hodler will back me up and then whisper what a nuisance I really am. Seriously, you and he and Dan are doing great stuff in comics and on this blog.
Beasts Book Two is set to debut at San Diego Comic Con. And Jon Vermilyea is most definitely a part of it. In fact he was the very first artist I asked. That young punk just floors me– his “12 Trials of Hercules” book manages to do something with pop culture recasting that nothing else does. It’s brilliant.
Covey, you deserve a high five.
Jacob, I meant the exchange was like the tcj board! It was funny, what? I laffed out loud when I read your post. For me, this is just like when my friends and I would hang out at the comics store and talk shit. High five!
The big reason the non-photo ref’d naturalism is gone is because nobody grows up influenced by Caniff anymore.
Sandy has a point. Some time I’d love to make a chart of influences, because it’s awfully tricky. I think I basically agree about Caniff, if we use Caniff to mean an entire school of pulp/naturalist rendering, which extends to 1940s and 50s advertising art, etc etc. In comics, one might say Caniff begets Meskin/Toth/Marsh/Elias/Buscema, and when Caniff’s influence on comics was inevitably supplanted by Kirby’s, things get a little funky. And, one could argue, that Caniff advocated at least attempting a realism (for better or for worse — it doesn’t always make for good comics) while the Marvel age of the 70s and on simply advocated looking at other comics. So, what bothers me about Cho, Stevens, et al is that they don’t seem to have ever looked at anything other than their genre-source material.
But then, running parallel is a kinda Fisher/Herriman/Gross to Kurtzman to Crumb to Ware to everyone else. I mean, it’s obviously not linear or nearly as simple as the above would indicate, but it’s a fun Saturday morning thought experiment. Influence is completely chaotic, really, because, after all, Kirby himself starts off looking like he learned a few things from Caniff and Crane, and Crane seems to come out of Fisher as much as any pulp/adventure tradition. But then, where does Cole fit in? On a kinda Bill Holman trajectory somewhere? It’s a fun game.
There’s no short cut to good draftsmanship. Practise, practise, practise. Less navel-gazing, less talk of “self-expression”, more hard work.
In addition, look at the masters, and I don’t mean Alex Raymond or Burne Hogarth et alia, look instead at Durer, Rubens, Ingres, etc. Hogarth & Raymond would have been the first to agree with this.
The development of the critical faculties to distinguish good from bad draftsmanship is atrophying in professional circles, esp. in North America.
very well said! thanks for checking in.
How exactly do mainstream guys like Stuart Immonen (when he works that style) and Sean Phillips get disqualified?
I don’t mean that as a challenge; I mean that as a concession I know they don’t count, but I’m not sure how they don’t count.
Hey T-
I dunno if there is any sort of qualifying standard or anything. This is definitely not a horse race. It’s about language I think, and personal vision.
I think Sean Phillips is fantastic, actually. He puts everything through this personal filter of his that just blankets the narrative in a particular light that I find very appealing. His gritty realism is a perfect match for the content of something like Criminal. The photo referenced backgrounds and certain ref’d figures bother me sometimes but again in the context of the narrative it works. He’s very adept at “narrative-flow.” The pages just roll by, it’s quite sharp. And the guy’s obviously a talented painter. One look at his blog says, to me, that if he can change styles at the drop of a hat.
I’m, admittedly not so familiar with Stuart Immonen’s work. But what I’ve seen tells me he’s very grounded in conventional “out-his-head” image making, despite some obvious photo referencing. Immonen, like most people who reference do make it their own, so to speak.
And while I accept that many artists feel that it is important to maintain consistency with the characters by using photos, I just don’t understand why they don’t adopt Jaime Hernandez’s approach. Why not work a little harder to keep the juggling pins in the air by one’s own faculties? What happens when their crutches are taken away? Kirby, Ditko, Golden. ’nuff said.
postscript:
Kirby, Ditko and Golden aren’t of the “non-photo-referenced, natural, realistic style”
I just meant that, for me, these are the pre-eminent examples of incredible comics artists who make it up straight out of their head.
I’ve got it!
“Non-referenced accepted naturalistic realism”
And I nominate Nick Cardy as it’s king.
This conversation, while enormously entertaining, gelled for me at the mention of Caniff. I don’t think I know any better than anyone else about this bizarre and highly subjective question, but I will say that cartoonists “descended” from the Caniff/Crane/Toth style of art drew first and foremost with energy and style. They seem more like cartoonists in a very pure sense, whereas many of the modern dudes you’re talking about are just guys who draw–and sometimes [blechh!] trace–comics.
For instance: can you imagine a Caniff “script” drawn by someone else? Not a contemporary like Crane, but one a modern comics artist? Although this doesn’t really have anything to do with Marshall Rogers, I guess.
I would humbly throw Paul Pope’s name into the naturalistic-non-photorealistic-jamboree-and-fishfry ring. He might be too stylized to fit the mold, but he’s definitely got the natural energy and pizzazz part down.
I’m so happy to see Marshall Rogers get some love here with the indie guys. I picked up that 6 issue Batman series he did with Steve Englehart a couple of years ago and loved it. I was telling my friends how much I was digging on Rogers art and they thought I was crazy. He was a big favorite of mine when I was a teenager and I hadn’t seen his work since the Silver Surfer in the 80’s.
I remember a panel he did on that famous Detective run where Silver St. Cloud and Boss Thorne (I think that was his name) are in Silver’s car. He composed this panel as if the viewer’s eye was on the gas pedal looking up. Half of the character’s heads were cut off by the dashboard. It was crazy. I don’t know what purpose that shot served other than to prove he could pull it off, but it sure was cool. I was pretty bummed that he died so young and didn’t seem to be all that appreciated by the younger superhero fans.
Goran Parlov. Works with Garth Ennis.
Dustin, I totally agree about Caniff. And Pope.
Robert, You better bust out “Demon with a Glass Hand” –I uncovered that too recently and it felt totally “modern” and fresh.
Marc, you might be right. Shit. Nick Cardy!
And for all of you who are perplexed by this thread because you don’t know who we’re talking about — I suggest digging through the discount bins at your local shop and discovering some of this stuff on your own!
Someone point me in the direction of a comics shop with Colon, Kirby, Ditko, Caniff, Toth and Cardy in the bargain bins!
Come to Pittsburgh!
Frank,
If you’d like to sell the Batman sketch by Marshall Rogers, please let me know.
Thanks,
John