Radiant Comics

I was thinking of things to make videos about earlier this week and I decided to pull an old Overstreet comic book price guide out of the closet. It came out in 1980 and it’s the tenth edition of the Overstreet guide. It was the first comic book price dude I ever bought and I was thirteen or fourteen years old when I first got it. I haven’t made a video about it (at least not yet) so I thought I’d write a little something.

First off it’s got an Alex Schomburg cover. This may have been my first exposure to him and I wasn’t impressed. It’s a World War Two cover featuring Captain America, the Human Torch, and Namor fighting Nazis. I remember it looking very old fashioned to me and now as I look at the cover it’s done in a weird style. Some of it is traditional line art with color inside the line and some of it (Namor) is painted with flesh tone lines. There is an awkwardness to it. I have long since found plenty of great Schomburg’s Golden Age covers from the 1940s to the 1950s. His covers are some of my favorites but not this one.

I can remember when I first bought this book I liked it not so much as a price guide, since I wasn’t buying a ton of old comics, but as a history book. It has all sorts of information on comics. For example I randomly opened a page and there is a listing for and old Marvel comic “Hedy Divine Comics.” It immediately tells us that it was formerly “USA” number 17 and titled “Hedy of Hollywood” from number 36 on. Number 22 came out in 1947 and number 50 in September of 1952. Then there is a note that says “18-21 exist?” Even the Overstreet guide did’t know everything about these obscure old comics.

The listing goes on further to tell us what issues had art with the more popular and famous artists in them. There are issues with Basil Wolverton and and some with Harvey Kurtzman art. I barely knew who those two guys were back then but now I knew some issues they drew. It was fascinating to me that I could open up to any page and learn something about comics that were made before I was born and knew nothing about.

Beside the price guide the book also has articles about comics. The first article is about grading comics and storing them. It has lots of stuff about bags, boards, and taking care of you comics. Serious stuff to a thirteen year old. That is followed by a 1979 market report. I had never seen anything like that before and was fascinated. It was all about a whole bunch of old comics that I had never heard of and that they were selling for record prices.

I got to see some old Schomburg cover printed about three inches tall in section called “Timelys – The Top Six” and “More Timelys” They had Sub-Mariner, Captain America, and the Human Torch comics in that section. Those were really cool to see. There was no internet and stuff like that was rarely reprinted back then so the price guide was the only place to see it. There is also a cover section in the back featuring random old comics from all sorts of publishers. That was also great. Where else was I ever going to see the bikini clad jungle woman who starred in “Zoot Comics?”

The book also has yellow pages in them. Ads that are actually on yellow paper. Ads for stores, ads for conventions, and a lot of ads for people buying and selling comics. I remember liking these ads because they made me feel connected to a larger comic book collecting community. There were people out there who liked comics as much as I did. Plus a lot of the ads had some nice art in them. There a few pieces by well known comic book artists that must have been commissioned by whoever was placing the ad.

Some of the ads even come with lists. Lists of prices of comics being sold and lists of prices for comics being bought. I think the buying lists were themes interesting to me fo how low the prices were. One ad says that he buys comics for 25% of the value listed in this guide. That taught me all I needed to know about selling comics. They probably were worth a lot less than anyone thought they were. With one hand the price guide giveth and with the other hand it taketh away.

Somewhere in the middle of the book is another article called “The Chronology of the American Comic Book.” That sounds pretty cool and it hits the highlights in only a few pages. But the one I’m really going to have to go back and reread is a 25 page article on the history of Marvel Comics. I don’t remember it at all but I must have read it a few times as a kid. As a fan of both history and comics this one was really up my alley.

And of course one of the fun things to do with old price guides is look up how cheap certain comics were back in the day. For example you could get a copy of the first appearance of Wolverine in “The Incredible Hulk” #181 for a mer $3.75. If you had the big bucks a copy of the first appearance of Superman, Action Comics #1, could be had for $9,800. Expect to pay over a million for that book today. And how much is the first appearance of Spider-Man in “Amazing Fantasy” #15 you ask? Well, that would be $900. It all sounds so cheap now but only if you have a time machine. Few people had ten grand lying around to get a copy of Action Comics #1.

Well, as any comic fan knows, we could sit around all day looking up nostalgia prices so I’ll cut it off here. Maybe someday I’ll make a video but until them writing will have to suffice.

Composition is my strongest natural artistic talent. I know how to arrange things on an instinctive level. Of course talent has to be worked on or it doesn’t fully develop but it’s easier to work on a natural talent. There is nothing to force. A talent for composition is also hard to recognize in a young artist. It’s an obscured talent. There is so much to learn about making a drawing and composition usually isn’t at the head of the line. If you’re trying to draw a room and the couch doesn’t look like a couch no one notices that it’s in the exact right spot. It took a long time for me to realize that composition was my strong point and even then it didn’t matter to the world at large. It’s something that people appreciate but don’t notice on a conscious level. People know why art is pleasing to them but they don’t always know why.

I bring up the subject because of the chance arrangement of art that I have on my easel at this moment. When I’m working on something big enough to need my easel that piece is all that’s on it. It could be either a big sheet of paper or a big canvas. But when I’m not working on my easel I put other art on it. Art I’m working on that I want to get a good look at. It’s important to step back and look at a piece from afar so I can judge it. I can see things in it that I can’t see when it’s on my drawing table. Sometimes the art display builds up on my easel. I put piece after piece on it as I finish them. I think the gathering of pieces appeals to my sense of composition.

The art that stacks up on my easel can start to create its own random composition. Or maybe the compositions aren’t so random because I’m the one placing the stuff on there but either way the whole bunch of images together start to create a new image. Right now I have some 11×17 inch drawings, 9×12 inch ones, 5×7 drawings, and finally even some small 2.5×3.5 inch drawings on the easel. Some are in color while others are in black ink or pencil. That’s quite the variety. Things aren’t always that varied on my easel.

I don’t think I’ve finished much in the last week but I got a bunch of stuff in progress. Plus there are things on the easel from past weeks. First of all my big white drawing board in on the easel. That’s always there unless a canvas is in its place. After I made a bunch of big drawings this last winter I usually had one of those big drawings on the easel but I’ve since put one of my big 22×30 inch photos on it. That’s in the back though and you can only see the top five inches of it sticking out the top.

In front of that big photo yet behind everything else are are bunch of my “Dreams of Things” faux comic book covers. They’re the 11×17 inch ones. I can’t even tell how many are back there but I can see bits of three of them. Two are just small pieces and the third is about half the cover. The one I can see the least up becomes an abstract piece. It’s just line and color.

The one I finished most recently is the faux cover that’s only been inked so far so it’s in black and white. That one is almost all the way in front and punches a hole in the colored ones that are behind it. It’s a drawing of three faces in three different orientations and there is no up and down in it. It’s almost like it has its own gravity and is sucking in the other drawings.

In front of the black and white ink drawing is a 9×12 inch pencil drawing. I hesitate to call it black and white because it’s really grey and white. The pencil drawing has the finest lines in it of all the pieces and is made of tiny little shapes so it’s hard to see what I step back from the easel. It’s the one that invites the viewer up for a closer look. There is a little piece of a 5×7 inch color painting sticking out on its right size so we get a bit of color to contain the black and white.

On the left side down in front are three 2.5×3.5 inch color drawings in front of two 5×7 inch ink and watercolor paintings. The stack is three-two-one counting the “Dreams of Things” cover behind it. They’re all shifted a little bit to the right. That’s a pretty good composition even if by chance. I like the way the three art cards came out. They’re bright and colorful with some cheery people on them. It’s almost like they’re in the landscape that’s behind them.

There are more 5×7 inch landscapes in the stacks but only two of them plus the little bit of the one on the right can be seen. There are also two 9×12 inch landscapes in the stack but neither can be seen. Or wait. Maybe I have them at the bottom of a pile of books being flattened a little bit. It really doesn’t matter since they can’t be seen but I can still feel their presence even if another viewer can’t. I made them all together so I tend to think of them as a group.

This chance arrangement is only going to last a short while longer. Things get moved around on the the easel too much for anything to stay long. But I will have to keep these up in the same order for one more day. It took me too long to write this blog. I started in the morning and am finally finishing it as the sun is setting. That means I lost the light to take the photo I was planning to take of it. I’ll have to do that tomorrow. Things always take longer than I think they will.

I was recently talking to someone a lot younger than me who is a fan of the TV show “Friends.” As happens with most twenty year olds she became a fan of the show by discovering it on Netflix. She binge watched the entire series, all ten seasons, all 236 episodes, in six days. Not being a binge watcher I find it astonishing not only that she did that but that she could even do that. It’s a different world than when “Friends” started.

I caught the very first episode of “Friends” back when it debuted in 1994. I was a fan right from that first episode and watched them all as they ran over the next ten years. But it was never a show that I watched over and over in syndication like I did “The Simpsons” and “Seinfeld.” Back in the 1990s I could quote those two shows at a moment’s notice and often did. “Friends” was more of a show that I watched, enjoyed, and then forgot about. It wasn’t until the show was released on DVD that I watched them a second time. That was sometime around 2005 so it had been ten years since I saw the first couple of seasons.

After watching the series for a second time over the course of a few months a funny thing happened. It became my comfortable nostalgia show. I’ve heard the creators of “Friends” describe the show as being about that period in life where you’re young, you’ve got some free time, and your friends are your family. It’s a brief time and there is a lot of fun to be found. That rings true to me.

Since then I’ve probably watched the show four more times. It takes me a while to get through them because I only watch an episode every now and then. It must take me two years to watch the whole series. Weeks can easily go by without me watching any of them and then I can watch three or four in a week. It’s a show that can cheer me up a little if I’m feeling down. Or it can just pass the time as I’m taking a break for twenty minutes. There are plenty of other shows I can watch if I want a laugh (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”, “Broad City”, and “New Girl” come to mind) but if I want some nostalgic comfort “Friends” is the show for me.

One of the times that I watched the whole series I decided to rate each individual episode. iTunes has a column for rating shows by giving them one to five stars. After I’d watch an episode I’d give a rating. It took a long time to make it through the whole series that time but eventually I did. Sometimes after I watch an episode I go back and see what I rated it. Usually I agree with my ratings but sometimes not.

The one thing that’s changed for me is that I’ve grown to like Season Ten more than I used to. It’s the weirdest season and I embrace its weirdness now more than I used to. It’s like the writers had the freedom to throw a lot of the rulebook out the window because the show was ending anyway. To me that’s epitomized by the episode where Joey thinks he can speak French. It’s so absurd. It takes the “Joey is the stupid friend” to an unbelievable extreme.

Phoebe is trying to teach Joey to speak French but he just keeps speaking gibberish that he thinks is French. No one is that stupid and unaware. It’s completely unbelievable. I used to hate the episode. It would make me wince. But somehow I did a complete turnaround on it. Now I love the episode. It’s a complete farce, breaks all the rules, and is dumb as dirt funny. It’s become the symbol of how much I like Season Ten now.

I also now like the Joey and Rachel romance from the later seasons. I used to not like those episodes much because they were so uncomfortable. Then I read one of the creators say that of course it was uncomfortable. They wanted to explore an uncomfortable episode that sometimes happens among real friends. Now I embrace the discomfort. I lean into the discomfort with the characters and appreciate it much more. It’s good stuff.

I’m writing about this because I’m just finishing up watching the series again. It’s been a couple of years and I’ve found that I’ve been watching Season Ten fairly quickly this time around. I have only the last double length episode to go and I’ll probably be feeling a little bit wistful after I watch it.

With the show being about the period in life where your friends are your family the last show is about that period coming to an end. The famous theme song has the lyric “I’ll be there for you” but we know that will no longer be true for the characters in the show. Two of the six are moving out of the city to the suburbs and as we know from the follow up show Joey moves to Los Angeles. It’s not that they aren’t friends anymore but they’ll never be as close again. Physically and emotionally. They break the promise made in the theme song. It’s a bittersweet last show.

“Friends” is my go-to nostalgia show because I was watching it during the years when I was about the same age as the characters in the show and I was also working in and hanging out in NYC. But I wonder what the show will mean to young people who are binge watching it on Netflix? Will there be any nostalgia in it for them? Is it already nostalgic to them? It was made mostly before the digital age but that wasn’t really that long ago. Is it like watching a show about a simpler time to the always connected smart phone young people of today? I don’t know.

What I do know it that sometime this weekend I’ll watch the last episode. I’ll enjoy it but it will make me a little bit sad. To blunt the sadness I’ll watch the first episode sometime soon after the last one. That’s always a weird wraparound. There is no equivalent to that in real life. If only there was but we can’t turn back time.

I like images. That’s my general preference when it comes to art. I like making images and I like looking at images. I’m in no way against abstract art, Ad Reinhart’s black compositions are among my favorite works of art, but, in general, I like a picture with my pictures. To narrow it down even further I like images of the human face and body. Those are the two main subjects that I paint and draw. Even if my faces get so out there that they bare little resemblance to actual faces there is still a face there. Occasionally I make abstract art made up of shapes and colors with no images to it but that’s fairly rare.

I’m also not much of a sketcher. I don’t go out into the world and draw from life. I know a few people who like to do that. They like to draw on the subway, the park, or even at a bar during “Drink and Draw” events. I think my work is too much inside my own head for that type of thing. As a consequence I don’t do a lot of landscape drawing. That would require me to go out and find some landscape worth drawing to sit in and draw. That never happens.

Of course sometimes I draw landscapes because they’re part of a drawing with a figure or figures in it but that’s a different beast. The landscape is just a background and is therefore subordinate to the main image so the landscape doesn’t have to stand on its own and is generally incomplete. An image of some sort will be blocking most of it.

I bring this subject up because this week I actually did make some landscape drawings. No figures in them at all. I guess the drawing would still be considered an image as opposed to an abstract drawing but to me it’s not really the same as if there were people in the landscape. They’re also not real landscapes. They’re not of any real place. I’ve been trying to think of a name for them but all I have so far is “Sci-fi Fantasy Landscapes.” That’s fairly descriptive of them but not very catchy.

It’s a style of landscape drawing that I’ve developed over the years and have done a number of them but not often. They come out of my “Busted Brush” technique (see, there is a catchy name) where I draw in ink with a watercolor brush that is so far gone that it can’t even come to a point anymore. When I go to draw one ink line on the paper three or four lines come out of the brush. The thickness and thinness of the line can also be quite random. Over all it’s a technique that forces me to loosen up, improvise, and embrace the randomness of making marks on paper.

I start out with a five by seven piece of watercolor paper and draw on it with my busted brush. This is where all the image making happens. These landscape drawing are all about the building I put in the. Sometimes it’s only one small building and sometimes there are multiple buildings filling the landscape. The building don’t adhere to any architectural style and are made to look interesting. Sometimes they look like buildings of an ancient civilization and sometimes they look like they belong on some other planet in outer space. That’s where the fantasy and sci-fi name come from.

After I decide on the first building (drawn straight in ink) I decide on the landscape around it. Or at least I decide on the general direction of the landscape. Then I add some of the elements of the landscape, more buildings, more landscape and so on until I’ve got it down. I’m careful to realize that I can always add more later and so I try not to add in too much stuff right away.

After the black line work is done I come in with some color. I’m not a big watercolorist but many years ago I decided to get some tubs to keep some liquid color in. The tubs are pretty big as paint containers go. They hold about a pint of liquid. Years ago I filled them up halfway with water and then squeezed a tube of watercolor paint into them. Now any time I want to use some watercolor it’s all ready to go. I have about six different colors set up that way.

With my watercolors set up that was they’re pretty watery. They color is light and thin. To darken the color I have to use a lot of washes. And I do. I’m not looking for wild illustrative color. I’m looking for subtlety and a little bit of visual interest. The color isn’t going to carry the piece as it does in so many of my paintings. So I usually have a bold sky color and then the buildings have color with just some small changes in tone in it.

If I want to color to be a little bit bolder I break out my pan gouache set. That give me twenty colors to choose from. Gouache is an opaque watercolor but with this style of drawing I thin it out and use it like regular watercolor. It can give me a little more variation in color density too.

After I get the color all done I go back into the drawing again with my brush and ink. All that watercolor going over the black ink can dull it down and make it look brown so adding some more black makes the drawing look strong again. Plus the drawing now has two different blacks in it and that makes for more visual interest.

After I finished the first five by seven drawing I made five more over two days. And then I decided to go bigger and made two nine by twelve inch drawings over the weekend. They all took me longer than I expected them too. They look like they should take less time than they do. Plus I’ve got the technique down and it’s a simple technique so I always think they should not take too much time. But they do.

I finished them up on a Sunday night and then a strange thing happened to me. I felt disconnected. It’s weird but sometimes making art without people in the images makes me feel off. Like I’m in a dreamworld. When I make dream-like drawings of people in them I’m fine. That even grounds me. But landscapes cam make me feel out of it. No wonder I like people in my painting so much.