 |
| Art by CHARLES GRIGG from the 1987 Dandy Annual. Copyright DCT |
You're looking at the cover of the latest DANDY (featuring a decades-old illustration) which, even if I wasn't already buying the last few issues, I'd definitely purchase for the above picture alone - simply because it's just so nice to look at. That's something that seems to have been forgotten by a whole slew of contemporary cartoonists working in what is laughably called the 'industry' today. In their desire to be 'modern', or 'cutting edge', or 'with it', or 'down with the kids' (or whatever), they overlook what can be achieved by merely producing an attractive, well-rendered drawing that is simply a pleasure to look at. Good art that not only tells a story but stands on its own two feet in and of itself. Art for art's sake, as it were.
When I reviewed two pages in last week's Dandy, I received some criticism from certain minority quarters attempting to cast doubt on the motives behind my honest observations. Coated in a superficial veneer of 'politeness' and 'civility', but equally mined with thinly-veiled facetiousness and sarcasm, comments came in from obviously emotionally-stunted individuals who clearly took exception to my detailed and specific analysis of the glaring deficiencies which were all-too apparent in sections of the 75 year old comic. (Never mind that I also featured what I liked about the self-same issue.)
However, as I've pointed out before, I've never once compared the work of any artist in The Dandy to any level of artistic ability I perceive, pretend, imagine, wish, or delude myself that I may have, but rather against the recognized greats of yesterday and today. (And there's far too many to list.) Any acerbic aspersions on my motivations, therefore, simply do not bear up to even the mildest scrutiny. Interestingly, going by recent reader reactions to the new BILLY WHIZZ strip in The BEANO, it seems there is far wider agreement with my view than my critics allow for. Current artist WILBUR DAWBARN has elected to emulate the style of original artist, MALCOLM JUDGE, and so far there has been no negative reaction (that I've seen) to a return to a more traditional style. (I feel obliged to say that there's no good reason why that lettering balloon in panel 6 should stray so far outside the border, but that's not Wilbur's fault.)
When I look at the art of some alleged cartoonists working in comics today, all it does is make my head hurt with a violent assault of almost-abstract imagery. Oh for the days when comic strip art was nicely rendered, crystal clear and easy on the eye. Just like the pages on this post, in fact.
As usual (fool to myself), the comments section is open to all those who want to agree, disagree, argue the toss, or simply hurl outrageous aspersions and vile invective. Ready, steady... GO!