The Skulls' Terrifying Journey (Comic Book & Pulp Mag. Ilustration)
Bill Palmer
here in rec.arts.fine, take a glance through some of the latest
art periodicals featuring ads for art auctions. It seems that
a number of popular artists, including those who illustrated
comic books, pulp magazines, and pin-up calendars are receiving
high-art treatment at a number of aution houses these days.
One especially ironic aspect of that is that quite a few
such illustrators looked at their often lurid illustration
work as something they did to support themselves so they
could on their "real art." In a number of cases, their "real
art" just was unfortunately not very original, while their
illustration work is now considered by many to be unique.
If you have an interest in the sort of illustration I refer
to above, you may find my essay (below) interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Skulls' Terrifying Journey
In COMICS THEN AND NOW the authors reproduce (in the entry on
"Skulls") some startling skull covers from old comic books. Steve
Duin and Mike Richardson make no mention, however, of one eerie
fact I have recently discovered about comic book skull-depiction.
In the older pulp fiction magazines of the Twenties and Thirties
(periodicals in fact marketed by a number of publishers who would
later jump into the more lucrative comic book business) the skull
functions for the illustrator in its time-honored literary fashion.
That is, artists used it primarily as a symbol to represent death,
though in the specific case of these highly-popular periodicals the
skull usually stood for violent death in keeping with pulp tradition.
Of course, there were also pulp stories where murderous malefactors
wore skull masks and costumes to frighten and intimidate their
victims, but in general the depiction of a skull on this sort of
fiction magazine cover merely meant that the tales found inside
focused on crime involving murder.
However, after the pulp publishers turned to comic books, something
truly terrifying took place. Before long, the skulls no longer
merely SYMBOLIZED violent death. Instead, the skeleton itself
became a sort of animated monster, not too much different in some
ways (with reference to the fear it inspired) than a vampire a
werewolf but more cunning than a gibbering EC Comic zombie.
This matter fascinates me and I would like to know the reason
for the skulls "journey" from symbol to monster. Of course
a child who sees a skeleton on the cover of an adult's crime
novel might conclude the story is about a frightening animated
skeleton. That is, to the child, the skull might be a SIGN
of something frightening, rather than a SYMBOL of it. Perhaps
the same thing occurred to an imaginative comic book writer.
Why not make the skeleton itself a monster? (he or she might
have mused over a drawing board).
Ajax-Farrell and Superior comics, for instance, often utilized this
sort of "skeleton as monster rather than only a death-symbol" motif.
For instance, in an Ajax-Farrell cover for HAUNTED THRILLS, vintage
1954, a nervous couple cowers in the back seat of a taxicab. The
woman stammers cartoon balloon fashion, "The driver...look...he's
changing...his face...tell him to stop, John. LET US OUT! Ohh...
he's going faster....faster." (All that can be seen of the driver
is a hideous grinning skull taking up most a good bite of the HAUNTED
THRILLS cover and wearing a chauffeur's cap with a skull and
crossbones.) "No stops, folks! This is one way...and DEAD end...
But don't worry...there's no fare! It's absolutely free service!"
For whatever reason, then, one interesting and little-noted
development in comic book history was this mysterious and terrifying
"journey" of the skull as it progressed (perhaps "descended" is a
better word) from disturbing death-symbol (or sometimes merely a
mask worn by a villain) in pulp fiction, to the cunning, horrific
monster depicted in some comic books.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Bill Palmer
IHCOYC XPICTOC <gust...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
>Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>: However, after the pulp publishers turned to comic books in the
>: 1940's, something eerie took place. Before long, the skulls no
>: longer merely SYMBOLIZED violent death. Instead, the skeleton
>: itself became a sort of animated monster, not too much different
>: in some ways (with reference to the fear it inspired) than a
>: vampire a werewolf but more cunning than a gibbering EC Comic
>: zombie.
>
>There have been animated skeletons featured as monsters of various sorts
>since the myth of Jason in ancient Greece, or the book of Ezekiel in the
>Bible. It isn't -entirely- new.
>
>Of course, walking skeletons performing hostile acts against mere mortals
>got a new lease on life in the Middle Ages in Europe, where the animated
>skeleton became a favourite symbol of death. For more, see Philippe
>Aries's -L'Homme devant la mort-.
Well, what you report sounds reasonable enough. However, I was
essentially discussing a pop culture phenomenon of the 20th
century, regarding the "terrifying journey of the skulls."
Now, a skeptic (who did not really understand comic art) might
conclude that the skull remained mostly symbolic in pulp fiction
illustration and became a skeletal monster-figure in comic books
because the comics were aimed at a less literate audience. I
would not accept that. It seems to me that inherent differences
in the medium led to this "journey" and while I don't have the
answers, I think the matter bears more investigation. (People
who want to pursue the topic further themselves and don't have
access to old comic books and pulp magazines might use reference
publications such as PULP CULTURE: THE ART OF FTCTION
MAGAZINES by Robinson and Davidson and THE PHOTO JOURNAL
GUIDE TO COMIC BOOKS by Frank and Mary Gerber.)
[Special note to rec.arts.prose readers: Regarding a comment
I posted here earlier about pulp and comic book illustration
becoming "respectable" as fine art, if you are interested
in seeing the sort of thing I was talking about, you might
want to check out the two references I cited above. While
those works are not about art actions, I can assure you that
some of the top art auction houses today would be delighted
to get their hands on many of those original paintings
which were reproduced on comic book and art covers. I
have, for instance, already seem some of it in the
distinguished AMERICAN ART REVIEW. Sadly, a great many
of those cover paintings were simply destroyed--sometimes
by uncaring publishers, sometimes by the artists themselves,
who were ashamed of their lurid work. As I pointed out
earlier, it is ironic that some of the pulp and comic
book artists looked on that sort of effort as only
something they did to support their "real art". In
most cases, the "real art" turned out to be rather
uninspired in the judgment of history, while the
lurid "commerciaal" stuff became today's masterpieces.
This may connect with something we discussed about
Atget the French photographer a couple of years back--
Much of Atget's great body of work could properly
be called "commercial photography." Yet, MOST
of the photographers of Atget's day who did
"fine art photography"--that is who took
pictures which essentially imitated things
that were traditional in fine arts, landscapes,
still lifes, and so on--strike many viewers
today as boring, while new books on Atget
are coming out regularly, and he is proving
increasingly popular at exhibitions...Why?
YOU tell me, dear rec.arts.fine reader...
(Hint: While Atget was by my no means lurid, I
feel the connection here is ORIGINALITY. Bot
Atget and some of the best comic book and
pulp magazine and pin up calendar illustrators
simply have proved to be more original than
many of their "fine art" contemporaries...)
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
>--
>IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus ihcoyc(at)aye.net
>+ NOLI Vibrabimus volvemurque usque ad reditum boum. ABDUCI +
>+ Let's put RU-486 in the water supply! +
>**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****