Barks's Glittering Goldie paintings
Daniel van Eijmeren
>>> So what? Glittering Goldie also is a one-time Barks fenomenon.
>> In the comics, true. But she popped up in an awful lot of his oil
>> paintings. http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/ [...]
> I don't know much about Barks' oil paintings, but... Did he paint the
> Goldie-oriented ones because he had a desire to use that character? Or
> because the customers who ordered the paintings had asked for Goldie
> to be included in them?
I don't know. But if so, Barks could have objected to using her.
Maybe a variation of this question would be:
Did Barks create the Duck-oriented stories because he had a desire to
use these characters? Or because the editor who ordered the stories had
asked for the Ducks to be included in them?
Barks has often said that he'd rather would have drawn humans instead
of ducks. So, according to the point you seem to be making, most of
Barks's comic book work should also be put aside as "commissioned work".
Well, is that really what you meant? :-)
--- Daniël
_______________________________________________
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
Lars Jensen
>>> [Glittering Goldie] popped up in an awful lot of [Barks'] oil
>>> paintings. http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/ [...]
>>
>> I don't know much about Barks' oil paintings, but... Did he paint the
>> Goldie-oriented ones because he had a desire to use that character?
>> Or because the customers who ordered the paintings had asked for
>> Goldie to be included in them?
>
> I don't know. But if so, Barks could have objected to using her.
>
> Maybe a variation of this question would be:
> Did Barks create the Duck-oriented stories because he had a desire to
> use these characters? Or because the editor who ordered the stories
> had asked for the Ducks to be included in them?
>
> Barks has often said that he'd rather would have drawn humans instead
> of ducks. So, according to the point you seem to be making, most of
> Barks's comic book work should also be put aside as "commissioned
> work".
>
> Well, is that really what you meant? :-)
Let me repeat the discussion up until your posting: Katie suspected
Barks of liking Goldie more than would be obvious from the fact that he
used Goldie in his comics only once. She based this belief on the
existence of relatively many Goldie-themed oil paintings by Barks. My
question was: Did Barks use Goldie in these paintings because he wanted
to see her again -- or because he was asked to use her by the buyers who
commissioned the paintings? If it's the latter, then Barks' repeated use
of Goldie in paintings doesn't tell us how he actually felt about her --
only what the buyers wanted him to paint. Which would mean that we
cannot conclude anything from her appearances in Barks' paintings.
Your response to this is still puzzling me, some 19 hours after I first
read it. You extrapolate a number of silly, outlandish and extremist
beliefs from my posting, imply strongly that this is what I believe and
then end your posting with a smiley.
I don't know whether you're having fun, want to make me angry or (for
whatever reason) are trying to make me look bad on a public message
board by suggesting I have the above opinions. No matter, so far you've
accomplished Objective 2.
Anyway, just in case your posting was meant to be serious:
1. Yes, Barks could have refused to use Goldie in his paintings, but
that's irrelevant to my posting.
2. Your idea of how Disney comics are produced (the editor asks the
writer to come up with a story -- and somehow stick the Ducks into the
action) is baffling, coming from somebody I know communicates with a
number of comics creators. Do you actually believe this is how writers
work?!
3. There is a world of difference between buyers commissioning a
painting and editors commissioning a story. They can't be compared the
way you do.
So, to sum up: No, I don't believe what you imply I believe. And, for
the future, don't try to suggest I have certain opinions, when you don't
actually know I have them.
Lars
_______________________________________________
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
Daniel van Eijmeren
> Let me repeat the discussion up until your posting: Katie suspected
> Barks of liking Goldie more than would be obvious from the fact that he
> used Goldie in his comics only once. She based this belief on the
> existence of relatively many Goldie-themed oil paintings by Barks. My
> question was: Did Barks use Goldie in these paintings because he wanted
> to see her again -- or because he was asked to use her by the buyers wh=
o
> commissioned the paintings? If it's the latter, then Barks' repeated us=
e
> of Goldie in paintings doesn't tell us how he actually felt about her -=
-
> only what the buyers wanted him to paint. Which would mean that we
> cannot conclude anything from her appearances in Barks' paintings.
Okay, I see.
> Your response to this is still puzzling me, some 19 hours after I first=
> read it. You extrapolate a number of silly, outlandish and extremist
> beliefs from my posting, imply strongly that this is what I believe and=
> then end your posting with a smiley.
You're taking my email way too hard. So hard that it gets offensive and
painful. Please stop that.
> Anyway, just in case your posting was meant to be serious:
I was having fun, *and* I was serious. So are most of my emails.
> 2. Your idea of how Disney comics are produced (the editor asks the
> writer to come up with a story -- and somehow stick the Ducks into
> the action) is baffling, coming from somebody I know communicates
> with a number of comics creators. Do you actually believe this is
> how writers work?!
What is the difference with reality, according to you?
Here are some of my thoughts on this subect:
Egmont would not accept a Disney story without Disney characters. Egmont
does ask artists to come up with stories involving Disney characters. And=
I think that they at least do have a desire for certain artists handling
certain characters. Would Egmont be happy if artists like William Van Hor=
n,
Daan jippes, and Don Rosa decide to make Bucky Bug stories, instead of Du=
ck
stories?
(I'm just taking Egmont as an example. I could also mention the Dutch
editor and artists like Mau Heymans and Bas Heymans. Etc.)
> 3. There is a world of difference between buyers commissioning a
> painting and editors commissioning a story. They can't be compared
> the way you do.
For the painting "Pleasure in the Treasure" (72-02), Barks could paint
anything he wanted. Still, the painting was commissioned. I think this is=
comparable with how Western requested stories from Barks. For example, in=
the early 1950s, when Western found out that WDC-comics were more popular=
with Barks stories in it, Barks was put on the job of creating ten-pagers=
again. In a manner of speaking, Barks was just an employee. Maybe a very
important employee, but still Western decided what Barks would do and wha=
t
he would not do. Just look at the butchered Barks-stories, for example.
("Trick or Treat", "Back to the Klondike", "The Madcap Mariner", "Mythtic=
Mystery", etc.)
--- Daniël
"Please, please, mister McDuck! Don't take my washing machine!
I need it to support my husband and three son-in-laws!"
(Which Barks story?)
_______________________________________________
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml