|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 27, 2017 15:54:55 GMT -5
Thinking about Eisner and want to run something past you guys.. Eisner's became one of the most influential creators of all time until the '80s - mostly for work he did in the '40s and '50s. I can't think of another majorly influential comic artist who wasn't immediately influential - EVERYONE was copying Kurtzman in 1955. Kirby had an almost-immediate affect on superhero comic art. (Twice!) You can easily name 50 cartoonists working before 1990 that will cite Los. Bros. Hernandez as a major influence. But it seemed to take comics a long time to catch up to Eisner. I can't actually load the article right now, but one of the writers at Sequart talks about how Johnny Craig was influenced by Eisner, and Ramona Fradon's Metamorpho stuff (obviously) looks a lot like Eisner. But, really, the reason that Eisner has the reputation he has now is because he was vocally championed by Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Dave Sim... The Comics Cube makes an (unsourced) list of people who cite Eisner as an influence and it's mostly folks who's major work was done in the '80s. And, by and large, I get the sense that they were generally more influenced by the Spirit than Eisner's graphic novels.* I'm not attacking Eisner here.. I'm just saying that it's a little strange that his influence skipped a couple decades. * Although I just read the Oral History of Fantagraphics and Gary Groth - who famously hated a lot of Eisner's work - said one of the reasons that Fanta started publishing in the graphic novel format was that Eisner had already done one. ** |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,376
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 27, 2017 18:14:27 GMT -5
As most creators during the Golden Age didn't take the medium seriously and viewed their work as disposable, I think it's understandable that most creators that came after weren't looking to the creators of that era for inspiration. But then two different events occurred in the 1970s that made Eisner relevant again:
1. Kitchen Sink Press began republishing old The Spirit material, as well as giving Eisner a platform for showcasing new work.
2. Eisner created A Contract with God and found a new creative voice for himself that took the medium in a bold new direction.
So I think its understandable that it isn't until the decade following that you begin to see creators taking inspiration from Eisner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2017 18:22:35 GMT -5
Don't underestimate the importance of Comics and Sequential Art by Eisner, which was a direct influence on Scott McCloud and Understanding Comics which in turn turned people back on to Eisner. Both became primers for a lot of folk's wanting to break into the industry. And then there Frank Miller borrowing from Eisner's toolbox on his Daredevil run and making frequent mention of it in the letters pages and other places in the fan press (especially when Dark Knight Returns hit and everyone was asking Frank about stuff), bringing new eyes back to Eisner that might not have looked that way otherwise.
I think the dual factors of the new availability of Eisner's stuff as Shax mentioned combined with more people pointing to Eisner during the same timeframe made the influence more noticeable, but it was still there behind the curtains even before that.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 27, 2017 18:45:43 GMT -5
You're proceeding from a false premise, Repti: that Eisner wasn't influential prior to the '80s. T'ain't so, McGee. You don't have to look very hard to see his influence all over the Golden Age, particularly regarding his storytelling sense. Jack Kirby, Nick Cardy, and Lou Fine differed stylistically but all learned from their exposure to him. Others weren't as good at plotting or story structure or dramatic lighting effects as he was, but that doesn't mean they weren't trying. Eisner's influence on Jim Steranko is also obvious once you look for it (not to mention Mike Ploog, who worked for him and whose '70s Marvel work echoes his style). And none of that even touches on Eisner's influence as a businessman. The deal he struck with Busy Arnold on the Spirit section was groundbreaking and his decades of work for the military showed others that there were career paths in comics outside the vast wasteland of commercial comics.
Cei-U!
I summon the fresh perspective!
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 27, 2017 18:59:40 GMT -5
As most creators during the Golden Age didn't take the medium seriously and viewed their work as disposable, I think it's understandable that most creators that came after weren't looking to the creators of that era for inspiration. I don't think that's ALWAYS true 1950 to the introduction of the comics code there were a lot of artists who absolutely took their work seriously. (And I think the '50s were the peak of American Comic art in general.) Everyone who worked on the Kurtzman EC books were aware that they were doing stuff with some resonance and importance. And many of the EC artists - who were working concurrently with Eisner's SPIRIT - were immediately and vastly influential on their peers. You can see Jack Davis or Wally Wood style artworks pop-up everywhere at every publisher. (Although Eisner probably influenced some of the EC artists... But the scope of his immediate influence was nowhere near what Wally Wood's was.) I dunno... I'm less sure of my thesis as I go. Mike Ploog was obviously influenced by Eisner, some googling gives me Ditko, Nick Cardy, and Murpy Anderson as big Eisner guys who all did major work before 1980, although I don't really see it in the latter's work. 1. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a really good point, although I think the Warren reprints in the '70s... and even the 2(?) Harvey issues were maybe even more important. (Although I think the Kitchen Sink reprints with their exhaustive interviews are the absolute *best* presentation of the material, to this day!) 2. I'm not so sure about this one. If I remember right Contract With God was a pretty massive failure when it was first released - although it's been in print for decades at this point. But I think Eisner's graphic novel output tends to be respected rather than directly influential. It's too slice-of-life-y for superhero cartoonists and too melodramatic for the current slice-of-life comics people. Although I personally find Eisner's tone infinitely preferable to, say, Ivan Brunetti or Chris Ware's "Oh Whoah is me! It is so very hard to be a middle class white guy and I am so sad! A Bloo Bloo Bloo Bloo Bloo" whinging. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 27, 2017 19:15:31 GMT -5
You're proceeding from a false premise, Repti: that Eisner wasn't influential prior to the '80s. T'ain't so, McGee. You don't have to look very hard to see his influence all over the Golden Age, particularly regarding his storytelling sense. Jack Kirby, Nick Cardy, and Lou Fine differed stylistically but all learned from their exposure to him. Others weren't as good at plotting or story structure or dramatic lighting effects as he was, but that doesn't mean they weren't trying. Eisner's influence on Jim Steranko is also obvious once you look for it (not to mention Mike Ploog, who worked for him and whose '70s Marvel work echoes his style). And none of that even touches on Eisner's influence as a businessman. The deal he struck with Busy Arnold on the Spirit section was groundbreaking and his decades of work for the military showed others that there were career paths in comics outside the vast wasteland of commercial comics. Cei-U! I summon the fresh perspective! Yeah, okay, you're right, my basic premise was probably mistaken. I didn't think about Eisner as a businessman or the vast early influence of the Eisner studio. (Kirby, Lou Fine, Mort Meskin.) And the latter guys who worked with him on the Spirit strip. (Wood, Fieffer - Wikipedia says Jack Cole, which I didn't know, although the Eisner influence is pretty clear in that case. ) I'm not completely convinced about Steranko. Steranko obviously knew his comics history and had the same formalistically inventive approach to comics that Eisner did, but I always got the sense he was more influenced by (then current) pop art and film during his '60s and early '70s comic work. (One of the reasons I started this thread was to talk about Steranko/Eisner, though!) Still, right now, he's probably one of the five most important classic American comic book artists, along with Barks, Kirby, Crumb and Kurtzman and I don't think he hit *that* level of influence -above Wally Wood and Neal Adams - 'till the '80s. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2017 19:23:54 GMT -5
You're proceeding from a false premise, Repti: that Eisner wasn't influential prior to the '80s. T'ain't so, McGee. You don't have to look very hard to see his influence all over the Golden Age, particularly regarding his storytelling sense. Jack Kirby, Nick Cardy, and Lou Fine differed stylistically but all learned from their exposure to him. Others weren't as good at plotting or story structure or dramatic lighting effects as he was, but that doesn't mean they weren't trying. Eisner's influence on Jim Steranko is also obvious once you look for it (not to mention Mike Ploog, who worked for him and whose '70s Marvel work echoes his style). And none of that even touches on Eisner's influence as a businessman. The deal he struck with Busy Arnold on the Spirit section was groundbreaking and his decades of work for the military showed others that there were career paths in comics outside the vast wasteland of commercial comics. Cei-U! I summon the fresh perspective! Yeah, okay, you're right, my basic premise was probably mistaken. I didn't think about Eisner as a businessman or the vast early influence of the Eisner studio. (Kirby, Lou Fine, Mort Meskin.) And the latter guys who worked with him on the Spirit strip. (Wood, Fieffer - Wikipedia says Jack Cole, which I didn't know, although the Eisner influence is pretty clear in that case. ) I'm not completely convinced about Steranko. Steranko obviously knew his comics history and had the same formalistically inventive approach to comics that Eisner did, but I always got the sense he was more influenced by (then current) pop art and film during his '60s and early '70s comic work. (One of the reasons I started this thread was to talk about Steranko/Eisner, though!) Still, right now, he's probably one of the five most important classic American comic book artists, along with Barks, Kirby, Crumb and Kurtzman and I don't think he hit *that* level of influence -above Wally Wood and Neal Adams - 'till the '80s. Are you factoring in Joe Kubert and the influence of his school in that list of most influential? -M |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 27, 2017 19:31:55 GMT -5
Yeah, okay, you're right, my basic premise was probably mistaken. I didn't think about Eisner as a businessman or the vast early influence of the Eisner studio. (Kirby, Lou Fine, Mort Meskin.) And the latter guys who worked with him on the Spirit strip. (Wood, Fieffer - Wikipedia says Jack Cole, which I didn't know, although the Eisner influence is pretty clear in that case. ) I'm not completely convinced about Steranko. Steranko obviously knew his comics history and had the same formalistically inventive approach to comics that Eisner did, but I always got the sense he was more influenced by (then current) pop art and film during his '60s and early '70s comic work. (One of the reasons I started this thread was to talk about Steranko/Eisner, though!) Still, right now, he's probably one of the five most important classic American comic book artists, along with Barks, Kirby, Crumb and Kurtzman and I don't think he hit *that* level of influence -above Wally Wood and Neal Adams - 'till the '80s. Are you factoring in Joe Kubert and the influence of his school in that list of most influential? -M Joe Kubert's my favorite artist, but I don't think he's top five most influential. I'd probably put him somewhere between 15 and 25. Bark's influenced duck comics still sell by the millions in Europe. Kubert (and the Kubert school en toto) just aren't that important, worldwide. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 27, 2017 19:34:05 GMT -5
Don't underestimate the importance of Comics and Sequential Art by Eisner, which was a direct influence on Scott McCloud and Understanding Comics which in turn turned people back on to Eisner. Both became primers for a lot of folk's wanting to break into the industry. And then there Frank Miller borrowing from Eisner's toolbox on his Daredevil run and making frequent mention of it in the letters pages and other places in the fan press (especially when Dark Knight Returns hit and everyone was asking Frank about stuff), bringing new eyes back to Eisner that might not have looked that way otherwise. I think the dual factors of the new availability of Eisner's stuff as Shax mentioned combined with more people pointing to Eisner during the same timeframe made the influence more noticeable, but it was still there behind the curtains even before that. -M I said Frank Miller! Good point about Scott McCloud, though - Understanding Comics is incredibly important, hugely Eisner-influenced, and (at least a couple years ago, maybe a little less so now) was a textbook in every college class in comics. And I suspect in 2017 a goodly percentage of comic reading is done through college classes. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 27, 2017 19:57:25 GMT -5
Anybody who worked for Eisner-Iger was influenced by Eisner at the very least in their story-telling approach. That would include Jacob Kurtzberg. Nick Cardy talks at length in a number of interviews about Eisner's influence on him both from the Eisner-Iger days and when he was doing Lady Luck in The Spirit.
And let's not forget Eisner's various assistants on PS Magazine, including Mikel Ploog.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 28, 2017 0:09:23 GMT -5
I'd forgotten about Eisner's Comics and Sequential Art, always meant to look for a copy of that for myself. Now that I look it up, I see there are a couple other Eisner books on the same subject: Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative and Expressive Anatomy for Comics and Narrative: Principles And Practices From The Legendary Cartoonist, anyone know anything about either of those?
I think an Eisner influence on Steranko is very likely, in addition to the advertising and pop culture techniques Steranko brought to comics. The way Eisner incorporated his title logos into the scenery, some of the cinematic "camera-angles" he used, all of that is noticeable in Steranko's work and Eisner is the most obvious comics source for it - which of course doesn't mean it was Steranko's only source but it would be very surprising if it didn't have some effect.
Though their styles were very different in some ways, I definitely see an Eisner influence on Wally Wood in some of his figure work and use of shadow and light.
Ploog is the most obviously Eisner-influenced in the way he draws the human form, though.
I only wish some of today's comics artists were influenced more by Eisner!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 9:14:44 GMT -5
I'd forgotten about Eisner's Comics and Sequential Art, always meant to look for a copy of that for myself. Now that I look it up, I see there are a couple other Eisner books on the same subject: Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative and Expressive Anatomy for Comics and Narrative: Principles And Practices From The Legendary Cartoonist, anyone know anything about either of those? I think an Eisner influence on Steranko is very likely, in addition to the advertising and pop culture techniques Steranko brought to comics. The way Eisner incorporated his title logos into the scenery, some of the cinematic "camera-angles" he used, all of that is noticeable in Steranko's work and Eisner is the most obvious comics source for it - which of course doesn't mean it was Steranko's only source but it would be very surprising if it didn't have some effect. Though their styles were very different in some ways, I definitely see an Eisner influence on Wally Wood in some of his figure work and use of shadow and light. Ploog is the most obviously Eisner-influenced in the way he draws the human form, though. I only wish some of today's comics artists were influenced more by Eisner! I've read all 3 of the Eisner "textbooks". Sequential Art is the first and is a general survey on how comics works. Graphic Storytelling focuses more on the use of panels and pages to tell the story, a how to guide so to speak. I own those two, I've read a library copy of the third, Expressive anatomy, and it focuses more on how to use the figure and face of characters to convey what you want to express (and conversely how to read the figures and faces of characters when you read if you reverse engineer what is there). All three can be seen as parts of the whole with Sequential being the general intro to his ideas and the other two focusing in on a deeper exploration of parts of the comic storytelling process. McCloud's Understanding Comics is a little more "user-friendly" for someone not already steeped in comics, but Eisner's how to trilogy is insightful, informative, and entertaining. -M |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 28, 2017 10:49:02 GMT -5
2. I'm not so sure about this one. If I remember right Contract With God was a pretty massive failure when it was first released - although it's been in print for decades at this point. But I think Eisner's graphic novel output tends to be respected rather than directly influential. It's too slice-of-life-y for superhero cartoonists and too melodramatic for the current slice-of-life comics people. Although I personally find Eisner's tone infinitely preferable to, say, Ivan Brunetti or Chris Ware's "Oh Whoah is me! It is so very hard to be a middle class white guy and I am so sad! A Bloo Bloo Bloo Bloo Bloo" whinging. I'm not sure what you mean by "massive failure." Maybe commercially, initially, but it was pretty unprecedented when it came out and definitely a hard sell, whether in comic shops or bookstores (if it got in them). People who knew comics knew Eisner prior to the 80s. Also, remember that the Warren Spirit started in '74 and continued through the '70s with Kitchen Sink, so there was a market. (Not to mention the "Spirit Bags" and tabloid, and coloring book and other fan-centered oddities in the 70s.) |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Aug 28, 2017 12:19:54 GMT -5
Steranko devoted a full chapter of his History of Comics to the Spirit. He knew his stuff and definitely considered him an influence.
I would say rather that Eisner was influential on two different generations of cartoonists, in two different ways. He was a prime mover in the 40s (and remember, a lot of the Quality comic titlea as well as work from other companies were purchased from his studio), and then when the Warren reprints started in the 70s he influenced another set of creators who came into their own in the 80s.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 8, 2018 23:52:32 GMT -5
After reading McCloud a few years ago and attending an Eisner/Kirby panel discussion at DragonCon this year, I decided it was time to get me some Eisner. I got his Dropsie trilogy and a Spirit hardback anthology for Christmas. The Dropsie stuff was amazing, especially the third one where he surveys 100 years in the life of the neighborhood. The Spirit stuff is interesting, mainly for how I see echoes of it in other things I've already read. Satin seems like a proto-Catwoman.
One of the 1941 (I think) stories included a bizarre plot point. Spirit and Satin come back from a month away with a month old baby (who ends up being an heir to some kingdom, whom they are safeguarding), and Spirit's redheaded girlfriend interprets this that the baby was born to Spirit and Satin, apparently after a pregnancy lasting one day. Is she really that dumb, or was something lost in the brisk pace of the story, or is there some cultural referent that I'm missing?
|
|
