Good monster art is a recent invention- didn't exist in the 30s and 40s in Horror Comics and Fantasy Art Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Good monster art is a recent invention- didn't exist in the 30s and 40s

Author	Comment
Babetician	Good monster art is a recent invention- didn't exist in the 30s and 40s	Lead	[-]
Jul 10 12 7:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Except in the movies. A pet theory. I don't know if I'm right. -And I mean good monster art, not the merely peculiar. I don't think it really developed until the 50s. Ed Emshwiller had a nice knack for it. Virgil Finlay and Ed Cartier came close, but usually drew hints of monster. Hannes Bok's heart was in the right place but he was too genteel. Check this out. Terror Tales December 34. John Howitt, good horror artist. Couldn't draw monsters, just creepy people. This is a scary devil? I've seen photos of Mr. Howitt and he was probably rushed and posed for this himself. First of all, it's too human looking- though I've seen some very nice human looking devils. John may not be a good example because he didn't like horror. It was just a job to him. He burned all his paintings.
	Remove this ad
Jim Burns		#1	[-]
Jul 12 12 11:48 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Gee whiz. I couldn't disagree more. The legacy of art in the pulps helped influence a generation or TWO... (Certainly there was bad work, but that shouldn't necessarily obscure all the good.) The good part is you have quite the treat in store, if you wish, to explore some of the great images that I'm sure exist in bits and bytes somewhere on the web... (Did you hear about the cyber werewolf? He put the byte on me....) ;-) And I have to say we disagree on Hannes Bok--maybe. I never thought of him as a monster artist, per se... But ever since I saw that wondrous back cover of CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN in the '60s... I'm not sure there's another artist who more transports me to some place of everwhere, a great fantasy universe. Just a few months ago, as a birthday present to myself, I picked up one of the softbound collections of his older work, published in the early '80s: And looking through it is like being given the chance to peer, and indeed walk, through another . realm. Best, Jim
Babetician		#2	[-]
Jul 12 12 2:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hannes Bok was a very fine artist and an inspiration to me always, but I'm talking about scary monsters. He was always more charming than scary. I remember his "Pickman's Model" and "Who Goes There". Certainly of a high standard. I meant to put up some examples of more frightening devils, but pressed for time this week. I remember the crudely drawn skeletons and devils in magic lantern slides of the 19th (?) century, and the comical creatures from Victorian art. Maybe there was a success now and then in the 20s and 30s, I just can't remember any. It seems they were few and far between. At the age of 62, I've spent a lifetime researching old monster art on the web and elswhere, as well as creating some myself.
taraco		#3	[-]
Jul 13 12 12:19 AM Burgomaster Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I dunno...the monster and horror art of the 10s, 20s, 30s and 40s (and 50s), I've always thought is downright demonic, from creepy skeletons and awful terror traps to decomposed bodies and zombies that out-dead many of the more anatomically dismembered posers of today. Also, I find the crude devil above quite effective, especially in the reaction of the damsel, whose complete terror sumps off the page. Possibly techniques are more sophisticated today, but for sheer gut-wrenching horror and shudders, it's hard to top the pulps and comics of the first half of the last century. (Let alone medieval visions of hell and such). david
Babetician		#4	[-]
Jul 13 12 1:32 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	taraco wrote: I dunno...the monster and horror art of the 10s, 20s, 30s and 40s (and 50s), I've always thought is downright demonic, from creepy skeletons and awful terror traps to decomposed bodies and zombies that out-dead many of the more anatomically dismembered posers of today. Also, I find the crude devil above quite effective, especially in the reaction of the damsel, whose complete terror sumps off the page. Possibly techniques are more sophisticated today, but for sheer gut-wrenching horror and shudders, it's hard to top the pulps and comics of the first half of the last century. (Let alone medieval visions of hell and such). david That's easy to say. Prove it. I'm a big fan of horror pulp art of the 30s, particularly Howitt. All the horror comes from the situations and settings. There are no effective horror characters, just crude attempts. The devil above looks like Mr. Whipple about to squeeze the Charmin. I'll provide examples soon. I doubt if anyone else can convincingly. If I could find a devil in the 30s as good as these by Jordu Schell I would be happy, but it aint gonna happen. There were some good undead Egyptians on a good pulp cover for "The Corpse's Wedding Night", but the artists hadn't really arrived yet. They were just practicing. The monsters of those days where like the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk as opposed to a 747. Last Edited By: Babetician Jul 13 12 1:35 AM. Edited 1 times.
Babetician		#5	[-]
Jul 13 12 1:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This was pretty nice for 1940 and it would probably scare small children today, but now it just looks silly and Graham Ingles at E.C. comics in the 50s could kick its ass. They were good enough at sexy girls though. Why? Sexy girl art had been around longer even then. Even that took awhile to get off the ground. Last Edited By: Babetician Jul 13 12 1:43 AM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
Babetician		#6	[-]
Jul 13 12 1:49 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A word about Howitt, the classy horror artist. He can be excused for not coming up with great demonic beings because he was just a regular commercial artist doing it for money. He did not like horror art, and burned all his paintings. Only one horror oil painting survives. I particularly like his women, even though they all look the same. He must have had a great model. Kind of looks like a 1930s Winona Ryder. The cornball devil could be the only real example of an epic fail by that good artist. He creates a nice mood here with just suggestion of dead looking people off in the distance. Also, what he illustrated were "Shudder Pulps". No supernatural creatures were permitted in those stories, unlike a real horror magazine like Weird Tales. Everything had to be explained away by some criminal plot, someone masquerading as a monster. In other words, "The Scooby-Doo Syndrome"! Talk about Retro. Skeletons and Devils are so Victorian. I guess they could be a disturbing apparition if you were alone on a dark night, but at the movies in the 30s you had Frankenstein, Dracula, Mystery of the Wax Museum, Doctor X, The Werewolf of London. Last Edited By: Babetician Jul 13 12 1:57 AM. Edited 1 times.
Babetician		#7	[-]
Jul 13 12 1:59 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Your aren't going to see anything like this demon by Aris Kolokontes on a 30s or 40s pulp. Sorry, my new computer sometimes prevents me from seeing when photos are gi-normous. I'm just getting used to it. Gotta be more careful!
taraco		#8	[-]
Jul 13 12 11:55 AM Burgomaster Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Interesting argument, and nothing against the fine portrayals you are showing. But not sure it's either-or. The current trend of inside-out faces (Predator), innards turned out, demonic eyes, teeth everywhere and day-glo menace and all is quite startling, but I prefer the garish and ghoulish of the early century. The pulp demons shown above to me are quite creepy in a strange surrealism world where the over-the-top teeth monsters of today are too often so outrageous that the reaction is, 'Cool. Nice effect.'
Babetician		#9	[-]
Jul 13 12 1:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Interesting argument, and nothing against the fine portrayals you are showing. But not sure it's either-or. The current trend of inside-out faces (Predator), innards turned out, demonic eyes, teeth everywhere and day-glo menace and all is quite startling, but I prefer the garish and ghoulish of the early century. The pulp demons shown above to me are quite creepy in a strange surrealism world where the over-the-top teeth monsters of today are too often so outrageous that the reaction is, 'Cool. Nice effect.' That's a good point, which is often why I like monster art from the 50s. I already put up some nice science fiction monsters by Emshwiller around here someplace. We've gone from too bland to way too much.
Babetician		#10	[-]
Jul 13 12 1:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Here's one from the 30s. (I used to own this, in fact it looks like my copy!) Again, a beautiful sexy girl and, well, for me a messed up dude with big ears, big teeth and a big nose is not a fun monster. Not too bad. I like something a bit otherworldly. There's a little known principle from Bud Westmore's old studio at Universal that the less nose a monster has the more sinister. Big noses tend to be comical. Jimmy Durante. By the way, I think some one made a sculpture of this great cover. Has anyone seen it? There was most certainly a sculpture of a pulp cover with a girl in a giant green hand, but I digress.
	Remove this ad