 |
| Images copyright relevant owners |
MASTERS OF SPANISH COMIC BOOK ART is a celebration of the great artists who revolutionized American horror comics in the 1970s with their work on Warren's Vampirella, Creepy, and Eerie magazines. The first-ever comprehensive history of Spanish comic books and the artists who brought them to life reveals their extraordinary success - - not just in Spain and America, but around the world.
Their global influence has been little known until this celebration of their contributions. Containing artwork from over 80 artists, this in-depth retrospective includes 18 artist profiles with 500 illustrations, over half scanned directly from the original artwork, Masters Of Spanish Comic Book Art honours the "Golden Generation" whose artwork inspired the imagination of comic book lovers everywhere.
(From the back cover.)
Available now from all good comics and book shops.
33 comments:
I know Luis Berjemo did some work for Warren, but did Lopez & Blasco do anything?
Dunno, JP, still to read the book - it's jam-packed. I'll let you know when I find out.
I was surprised that Blasco did some work for Marvel - Not 100% but I think he did a few things (not many) at Warren I'm pretty sure I have a strip he did for Creepy inmay collection. This is another book I will be looking out for.
The art in the book is amazing, PM, so if you do get a copy, you'll love it. There must be somebody's birthday coming up to give you an excuse to buy it, surely? You know, "It was Fred's birthday, so I bought myself this book!" type of thing. I do it all the time.
Cheers, McS, will go through some Creepys on the net.
Not before bedtime, JP - you'll give yourself nightmares.
Hi John - You can see one of Mr Blasco's strips from Creepy in the link below - "The Clockmaker" one of the reasons you may not find this in a search is that Warren mis=spelt Blasco's name as "Blasquez" - This isn't the strip I have so there must be a least one more out there.
Kid I think this one will jump to the top of the queue for me - I'm off to the football this weekend but next weeks a long holiday weekend so I will get it then (to either commiserate my team getting relegated or for escaping it by the skin of their teeth)
http://professorhswaybackmachine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/poe-1979-pt-2.html
Are they the same artist 'though, PM? There were two artists, one called Jesus Blasco, the other called Joaquin Blasquez. I'll take a look at that link too, ta much.
Ah, just found out that Blasco had three strips appear in Warren magazines (Creepy), but they were all miscredited to other artists. The J. Blasquez in the credits of the strip at your link is obviously (and wrongly) Joaquin Blasquez.
Well, thanks anyway, McS, (still the "linkmaster", I see!
I'll have a poke around on there anyway!
If you find out who they were miscreditted to, please let me know, Kidda!
Blasquez was one, I'll see if I can find the other two.
Blasco's art for 'Hell House' in #120 was credited to Alabaster Redzone, and his art for 'The Slave' in #123 was credited to Jaime Brocal. How's that for service, JP?
That is EXCELLENT service, Kidda! Many thanks!
You too, McS!
By heck, you two are a knowledgeable pair!
Well done Kid, good detective work , Batman would be proud - John here's a link to Creepy 120 "Hell House" this is the one I have - I can't sea anything in issue 123
https://archive.org/details/warrencreepy-120
Just found it - Here's Creepy 123 "SLAVE" Didn't look like Blasco at first to me - Incidentally this link is to an approved site its not a "pirate" site
https://archive.org/stream/warrencreepy-123/Creepy_123#page/n29/mode/2up
Cheers, got 'em both clicked!
Hell House looks particularly good, havn't read them yet, I'm off to do just that now!
Thanks again, lads!
Batman IS proud, PM - he told me so himself when we were talking on the Bat-line an hour or so ago. As for your link not being a 'pirate' site, does it really matter to you unless they're making money that would otherwise go to the creators? If I were to see something I wanted on a site, it would just make me want to buy an official version as I prefer actual comics or collected editions. And in the case of old stuff, it was bought outright on a 'work for hire' basis, so the creators (if they're yet alive) STILL don't get paid any money out of it. It's different with NEW stuff that's officially available digitally which you'd otherwise have to pay money to read, because accessing the stuff for free on a pirate site takes money out of the pockets of creators and publishers, but in the case of old stuff, the so-called pirates are most likely creating an appetite for collected editions of the stuff in the future. There are shades of grey, and it's not quite as simple as some po-faced, self-righteous individuals who enjoy lecturing other people about 'integrity' would like to make out. That's near-enough the equivalent of well-fed fat people lecturing starving skinny people about table manners. (Hey, does that sound like a lecture? Irony, irony!)
******
Glad to have been of some small service, JP.
I wouldn't "die in a ditch" over it Kid, but personally it would matter to me especially (as you say) for new stuff (which can include old material reprinted in new volumes) - for me, if you don't have permission to use peoples (creators or companies) stuff (except for review, comment etc like you and others do) then its stealing. That is only my personal opinion on this - and I fully admit that I have probably in the past downloaded music and comics from these type of sites (unwittingly). The issue of whether this affects comic sales is a different matter - I doubt it has any major effect on sales (maybe it has none) that's down to a lack of interest in the comic book format and the product being produced.
It's an interesting subject, PM, and not quite as clear cut as some people suggest or imagine. I'm sure we've all bought a record in the past and made a free copy for a friend or two who wouldn't otherwise listen to or buy it. No sales affected there, and, as has happened with me, a couple of people have then bought their own records of that particular artist, thus increasing sales. I became a fan of k.d. lang through someone giving me a tape of her Shadowlands CD, and I now have just about every album she's released - all bought new. So a certain amount of what some people call 'piracy' has actually helped sales in the long run. (And it's a bit unrealistic of music/record companies to create and sell the means of copying music (cassette recorders and tape, back in the 'old' days) and then expect people not to do it. It's a bit like saying "Here's the key to the pantry, don't eat anything!")
With comics it's a similar scenario in certain circumstances. I'm sure that quite a few people who have seen the Johnny Future strips on this blog would be prepared to purchase a good quality printed edition because of seeing them (or being reminded of them) on this site. (I certainly would, and I've already got all the original issues.) Those that wouldn't are mainly those who wouldn't anyway, so the fact that they perhaps read them on Crivens! is neither here nor there. They obviously don't appreciate them enough to want them in print. They probably didn't even bother to copy them from the blog. So, in the main, no sales lost if ever a hardback collected edition comes out, but very likely a few extra sales gained because someone's interest has been stirred via me.
That's why Rebellion probably invested in buying Egmont's back-catalogue of strips, because they realised from blogs such as this that there might be a market for the material. It's obviously different with brand-new digital material of the kind that DC and Marvel make available, because to copy and distribute that, is to take money out of the companies' pockets, and that of their contributors.
However, some companies milk it, do they not? Just how much money do they have to make from 50 year old comics (or films) before they can relax a bit? They've recouped their original investment several trillion times over. Any site which reproduces old images that aren't currently available to the public elsewhere are doing more good than harm I'd suggest. Many bloggers post full pages from old comics on their blogs, which they can't have obtained permission for (because the publishers are defunct or nobody knows who owns the copyright), so are they pirates too? If so, that would include one particular blogger who's fond of lecturing others on the matter. Fact is, PM, when you visit comic sites where specific permission has not been obtained to reproduce stuff (beyond what is considered 'fair use'), you are 'aiding and abetting' piracy - if indeed that's what it is. (If not, then you're not, obviously.)
As I said, there are many shades of grey here, and unless someone is making money that should otherwise be going to creators, then I find myself not too bothered at the end of the day.
Fair use is fine I don't see anyone complaining on that - its a common and accepted practice and is used in print and online and most companies like it as its free advertising etc. You can argue the use of "pirate sites" till your blue in the face and I agree there are shades of grey here that you can go into in depth some are common sense some a bit contrived, some are simply an excuse for stealing a product thats not theirs. I see a massive difference in someone showing an issue of a 7 page 1963 horror tale and a site giving you every full edition of 10,000 comics - its like folk using illegal Sky/Virgin boxes and thinking its fine because that companies a soulless multilateral well that company owns that material and makes it possible to have TV shows etc (most crap like comics sadly)if you cant afford it don't use it . As I said its a personal choice I'm pretty sure I pick up and use information/ product I shouldn't but I wont use torrent sites.
And I'm not defending torrent sites, PM, and have never used them, but I'm pointing out a question of degree. You see, if you have a blog for any length of time over a span of years, you eventually end up posting thousands of pages that your readers get to see without paying for. So one is entitled to wonder if, at the end of the day, there's any real MORAL difference between showing people pages over a period of years, or all at one go in a torrent site. It's like the old joke about a man and woman (strangers) in a train compartment, and after a while, the man says "Excuse me young lady, you're very pretty. If I gave you £50, would you make love to me?" "Of course not - what kind of woman do you think I am?!" she replies huffily and returns to staring out the window. This is repeated several times, the amount increasing each time, with the woman saying "Of course not - what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Eventually, the amount offered is £1,000, whereupon the woman says "Well, okay then, I'd do it for £1,000." A few minutes pass, then the man repeats his first offer of £50. "Of course not - what kind of woman do you think I am?!" she replies. The man looks at her and says "Well, we've already established that - now we're haggling over the price!"
Is a thief any less a thief for smuggling parts of a car out of a factory every day over a ten year period, than someone who breaks in and steals the whole car in one go? It's all a question of degree you see. Points to ponder, is all I'm saying.
Well I think we are in agreement then - I have no issue at all in what you and other similar sites do its in no way piracy would never imply that. Its torrent site I disagree with.
I was actually going to raise that very point re a "question of degree" - another area could be that your site only ever shows pages 1-3 of a 30 page comic , another shows pages 4 -7 etc etc pretty soon you have the whole comic - no ones wrong its all individual fair use
There is also one specific issue that affect you and a few other sites that falls into this category and what you said - Rebellion are going to publish a collection of Ken Reid's "Faceache" strips, now I'm pretty sure I can find a fair amount (if not all) of these on your site and on a few others as they have been published online (as you note) in increments over the year (ditto Frankie Stein, Dare Day Davy etc etc) - Now did your blog and others give Rebellion the idea that there was a potential market out there for this book - I would say that you and others at least played a big part in that decision - Would Rebellion be right in saying take them all off your site(s) - the answer is surely NO - I get that "shades of grey"
I would say the guy nicking car parts is as much a thief as the guy that steals a car but I get your point in relation to comics (as noted above thats "fair use" in increments) yeah Im being pedantic but I get so fed up with the "I want is now and for nothing" generation (re torrent sites etc not fair use)
Yes, there's a sense of unwarranted entitlement at large in society today, and that also irks me as it does you, PM. There are other things that irk me as well, but they're not getting a free plug on MY blog. Hee hee. But my point was that, by other people's standards, what I and other bloggers do isn't much different to what torrent sites do - the only difference is a matter of degree, isn't it? So while I tend to take the same view as you do in regard to blogs like this, who's to say that those who take the opposite view are wrong? They've surely got a point, even if it's a subjective one. My point is that, in grey areas, it's probably wiser not to take a self-righteous stance as others have done, when the only difference in what we get up to is, at the end of the day and in some people's opinion, only a matter of degree.
Apologies, Luis, for hastily spelling your name wrong!
How COULD I??
It's Bermejo, readers!
( Shame on me! )
Thanks McS, I had already found 'em elsewhere, but your links may well be better quality, so will have a look on those too?
I'm looking for Eerie 82 now for one of Luis' ( First Rook )
You're right, btw, "Slave" doesn't look like Jesus' ( not inky enough is the best way of explaining my thoughts! )
Phew, lads, what have I come back to?
My views on this matter are quite simple - Piracy is making money out of other people's stuff! If bloggers were selling the contents, they would be pirates, but showing what was out there, no matter how much or how little, for free, and not profiteering from it, is sharing!
ANYWAY, I just popped back to mention that, in the seventies, my brother amassed quite a collection of horror comics, so, when I have finished posting the sixties comics covers on my humble effort, I'll show you the covers to those too!
( unfortunately, though, as he burnt the whole lot one bonfire night, - yes, you heard right, "BURNT"! [ aargh! ], I shall have to resort to jumping aboard the old "Jolly Roger" again to find images of these covers, so I DO hope I don't get keel-hauled! )
Some people would say that depriving (or not paying) creators or publishers for the right to show (or 'share') work is also 'piracy', JP. Even when the creators or publishers are not exploiting the property or making it available, aren't they entitled to be paid for its use, regardless if the user makes money or not? What's your views on that? (Just trying to be fair to both sides of the discussion. Why don't we get interesting discussions like this on other blogs I wonder?)
Some blogs are a bit like Steve Ditko's Mr. A - either it's black or it's white! There is a lot of grey areas in between and both sides of the argument make valid points and would come across as being "right". By playing Devil's Advocate, you imply that there is one line of thought that would say that everybody who shares an image should pay the owners of that image? - I think we should start with the gutter press in the newspapers!
That's the implication, if not the explicit claim, of some people who suggest that no one should use an image without the permission of and/or payment to the copyright holders. Of course, that doesn't always mean that the creators of those images will get royalties, because a lot of them were paid for outright before that system was introduced. However, that's an interesting point, JP. Don't newspapers pay for use of old images, strips, and the like?
Perhaps they might do, but the photographers don't get permission from people they photograph or their permission to publish ( share ) these images with the world. I know this is a completely different matter, as they would argue that the images belong to those who take them? Grey areas, again!
Indeed. If you pay a photographer to take a photo of you (or anything), he owns the copyright. A case could be made, perhaps, that the person who commissions the photo should own the copyright, or at least jointly with the photographer. In the case of newspapers taking photos of 'celebrities' (in their daily lives) to boost sales, that would give me a headache trying to work it out. Grey areas, and numerous shades of grey to boot
Post a Comment