Drawing What You Hate

The last post outlined a drawing exercise designed to help would-be comic book artists expand their drawing knowledge.

This entry will outline another exercise that can help artists expand their knowledge and grow creatively.

A good comic book artist has to be able to convincingly draw a wider variety of subjects that most other representational artists. Other types of representational visual artists often specialize in certain subjects. For example, a commercial artist might specialize in motor vehicles or architectural renderings or celebrity caricatures… the list is nearly endless. Many fine artists also stick to a tight subject grouping.

When a comic artist is handed a plot or a script, it’s his/her job to render all of the subjects the writer calls for with equal credibility. If the writer calls for a shot of a baby in a crib and the artist can’t draw small children convincingly, the awkward results will look out of place compared to the art in the rest of the story. The unconvincing child will stick out like a sore thumb. (Or, the artist may try and “cheat” and use a silhouette, or only show the baby in a long shot.)

This not only puts the artist in a bad light, it pulls the reader out of the story, disrupting the reader’s suspension of disbelief. That’s the equivalent of a Cardinal sin for a sequential visual storyteller.

Some artists love a challenge and will, on heir own, aggressively tackle learning how to draw new subjects. Many artists, however, if left to their own devices, will usually stick to those subjects they already know fairly well and will avoid the discomfort of learning how to draw subjects they don’t have to.

Many artists who try to break into the comic book business draw the same types of subjects repeatedly while avoiding other subjects like the plague. The subjects in these two categories vary from artist to artist.

Those longing to work in super hero comics often generate art samples containing dynamic shots of figures flying and slugging it out. Even though many super hero stories feature city scenes and characters in civilian identities, samples by would-be comics artists often lack shots of civilians wearing street clothes with convincing drapery, or realistic-looking cars. Animals comprise another category often absent in comic book artist samples. Many samples also show a lack of basic perspective knowledge.

Artists steer clear of some subjects consciously – avoiding what they don’t enjoy drawing, or what they don’t yet know how to draw convincingly. Artists also unconsciously avoid some subjects.

Versatility and depth of drawing knowledge is one of the major considerations an editor has when deciding which artist to hire for a job. If all other considerations* are equal, the artist who can draw more subjects at a high level will have a distinct advantage over the competition.

For an artist to expand the number of subjects that he/she can draw well, they need to concentrate on the subjects they avoid both consciously and unconsciously.

If you are an artist and want to expand your drawing knowledge and increase your “subject quiver”, make a list of all of the subjects you KNOW you’ve been avoiding. Be brutally honest. If you hate drawing dog, add it to the list. If you avoid complex perspective shots, put it on the list. Can’t stand the thought of drawing toddlers, put them on the list.

Next, to try and identify the subjects you don’t realize that you need to learn how to draw, list the various subjects that appear in a number of comics over the course of many months. Be attentive so you don’t again miss the items that have escaped your notice before.

For example, the tires on a car have a number of multi-level planes and curves that need to be understood in order to be drawn properly, especially when seen at an angle. Up to now you may have unconsciously avoided this by silhouetting all of the tires you drew, or by awkwardly cropping your vehicles.

Do your buildings really look like businesses or residences? Do they exist in convincing perspective? Does the way they are rendered reflect the materials they are made from? A old building made from masonry should not have the same feel or texture as a steel and glass structure.

Or, when a script calls for an office scene, you may fall back on the same simple ciphers for a desk and chair that you’ve been using for years. It may be time to actually look at how different desks and chairs are designed. If you are drawing a story taking place in the 2009, you should not be drawing the same desk and chair that you’d draw in a story set in the 1959.

After compiling the list, you should relentlessly tackle each item on the list. Try to make significant progress on at least a few subjects per week.

If you have difficulty conquering a tough subject, refer to the drawing exercises in Betty Edwards’ “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.”

You can also first break the subject down into its most simple shapes and build it up from there. Under some lighting conditions, if you squint at the subject you’re drawing, the subject will appear to be more high contrast. (Running photo reference though a copy machine or scanner with high contrast settings will save you the eye strain!) You can then use a large pen or brush to block out the high contrast dark areas to get a feel for the subject. Then you can attack the subject again with a more detailed rendering approach.

Some people like to trace photo reference to learn how to draw new subjects. Tracing can be an effective learning exercise IF the artist concentrates on learning the structure of the subject as you trace. Be careful not use tracing photo reference as a crutch. There are artists who become slaves to photo reference. If they can’t find the right shot to trace, they either turn out an unconvincing drawing, or they avoid the subject and hurt the storytelling.

If you truly learn how a subject is structured by tracing it, you’ll be able to draw the subject convincingly from a variety of angles without having to continue to trace it.

Use whatever method that works for you.

Often, after “mastering” a subject that he/she used to avoid, an artist will experience a great feeling of accomplishment.

*These can include visual storytelling technique, dynamic figure drawing, use of light and shadow, rendering style…

Why Copying Someone Else’s Drawing Style is a 2-Edged Sword

Many of the art samples I received when I was a comic book editor had the same problem. The would-be comics artists had learned to draw by looking at other comic book artists. There are certainly a lot of things you can learn by looking at the work of others, and even emulating another artist’s approach to drawing.

However, very often, when you copy the work of another artist, you are aping their surface rendering “style”. That surface rendering style is, to some degree, composed of the drawing tricks, shortcuts or techniques an artist uses to cover up weaknesses in their drawing knowledge. (Is all that decorative line work really defining how the drapery works or is it a surface stylistic flair that helps disguise the fact that the artist doesn’t really know where the tension points are on the drapery or how the anatomy under the drapery affects the folds?)

As a general rule, the best you can be when copying another artist is a second-rate version of the artist being copied. How many Jack Kirby, Neal Adams, Mike Mignola or Jim Lee clones have matched the quality of work produced by their idols? An artist who abandons copying the surface style of another artist in order to forge their own creative path has a chance of equaling or surpassing their idols.

For example, when Bill Sienkiewicz started his comics career, to a large extent he was a Neal Adams emulator. When Bill began stretching himself creatively, he forged a great new and exciting style that was unique. Bill’s new stylistic approach was based on his expanding drawing knowledge.

To get would-be comics artists to expand their drawing knowledge and stop copying the surface styles of other artists, I recommended some drawing exercises, starting with those in Betty Edwards’ “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain”. Edwards’ exercises are designed to expand the way artists observe and draw, opening up their creativity. (See the link on the right for more info on this book.)

There were a number of additional drawing exercises I used to recommend for artists trying to get into comics. Here’s one of the best:
At least a few times a week (daily is better), pick a different subject (person, landscape, household object – whatever) and draw that subject in at least five totally different styles and/or media. The styles might include—
-Dry brush
-Blind contour drawing (aka leading edge contour drawing)
-Charcoal or conté
-Paint (water color, acrylic, oil)
-Stipple
-Pen and ink.
-High contrast
-Sculpture (clay or similar malleable medium)

Sculpting is a key part of this exercise. Artists sometimes get comfortable drawing a subject from a certain angle and under specific lighting conditions. By sculpting a human figure, artists can learn—
-Where their drawing knowledge is weak and needs beefing up. (Artists can’t cover up their drawing knowledge as easily on a 3D sculpture as they can with rendering styles on a drawing.

-How the figure looks from all angles, including those angles the artist consciously or unconsciously avoids when drawing. This expands the number of angles the artist will feel comfortable drawing the figure from in the future.

-Upgrade the ciphers for “objective reality” that artists program their brains with so they can draw “out of their heads” (without reference) more convincingly.

-How the subject looks under a variety of lighting conditions.

As always, comments are welcome!

Fostering Creativity

Creativity has long fascinated me.

What exactly is it? Are there different types? Can it be taught or fostered?

Finding a definition of creativity that everyone agrees on seems impossible. It is generally agreed that creativity often involves the combining of new and/or established ideas in new, innovative ways.

Whether or not a creative innovation is good or bad depends on whether the new idea is effective in some way—does it make something easier, safer, faster or more aesthetically compelling?

Many people associate creativity almost exclusively with the arts. However, creativity is not restricted to any subject, discipline or activity. It is very possible to be quite creative and innovative while doing things that many of us view as mundane – cleaning house, mowing the lawn and so on. Creativity is a way of operating.

Some years back, I had the pleasure of attending John Cleese’s lecture, “Creativity in Management”. This sparked my interest in how creativity might be taught or fostered. I looked for ways to advance my own creative development and for techniques to aid in the training of the comic book artists I was working with.

Cleese’s lecture was incorporated into a series of videos that his business training company, Video Arts, produced. There are three Cleese videos specifically related to creativity:

• Creativity in Management
• The Importance of Mistakes
• The Hidden Mind

You have to pay to see the first two tiles but The Hidden Mind can be viewed online.

In recent years, I’ve gotten involved with public education. This has renewed my interested in finding ways to foster creativity, especially in the classroom environment.

Creative thinking is vital to student success in all subject areas. To prepare students for future success in and beyond the classroom, they need to have techniques that foster creative innovation.

As educator, author and creativity expert Ken Robinson points out, we don’t even know what the world will be like in 5 years yet our schools are now teaching kids who will be expected to work productively for forty or more years from now. The education we give kids today can’t possibly anticipate the information and skills they will need years down the road. However, if they have the tools to be creative and to innovate, they will have a much better chance of succeeding no matter how the world changes.

Here is a link to a great video presentation, “Do Schools Kill Creativity” that Robinson gave at a recent TED conference.

Other Robinson videos can be seen on YouTube. I also recommend his book Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative.

Based on the research I’ve done so far, here are some things that can be said about the slippery subject of creativity:

• Creativity is not a talent; it is a way of operating and it can be taught.
• It is not related to IQ (providing you have a minimum level of IQ).
• To get into a creative mood, creative people often get into a “playful mood” to explore ideas for enjoyment.
• The best combination of environment and attitude that is needed to foster creative thinking involves having a quiet space and enough time to get into the proper frame of mind. However, these conditions are not practical to use in a classroom environment.
• There are a variety of brainstorming techniques for individuals and for groups that are useful in the classroom.
• For creative thinking/brainstorming, it’s vital to create a climate where people are not identified with/tied to/judged by the ideas they throw out off the top of their heads. They have to feel free to contribute without fear of being judged negatively. You never know what may turn out to be a constructive contribution. Seemingly ridiculous thoughts may spark a chain reaction that leads to a creative solution.
• Creativity and humor are linked. The way seemingly dissimilar ideas come together when brainstorming is similar to the way a punch line works in a joke. The humor in a punch line is often derived by shifting to a different frame of reference when coming to the end of a train of connected thoughts or events in a joke. You laugh at the movement of contact/juxtaposition between two frames of reference.
• Mistakes are a vital part of the learning process. There is a British proverb: The man who does not make mistakes is unlikely to make anything.

Ideally, I’d like to discover a group of tools/techniques that enable students in an often boisterous classroom environment to be more creative and innovate across a wide range of subjects and endeavors. I’d also like to be able to measure the effects of adding creativity fostering techniques to various subjects. (That will be no easy feat!)

As I get a chance to do more research on creativity, I‘ll post what I learn here.

Comics by Fans for Fans

The recent entries on the recruitment and development of comic book editors and creators generated a fair amount of interest.

So, for now, I’ll table the blog entry on the merits of breeding African egg-laying tooth carps in large outdoor tubs in favor of another entry on comics editors and creators. (For those who think I’m kidding about an entry on breeding tropical fish in tubs, just wait until warmer weather returns!)

Since the late ‘60s, many of the writers and editors, and virtually all of the artists, entering the comics field grew up as comics fans.

By the late ‘70s it was unusual for people who had not grown up as comics fans to enter the editorial or creative ranks of the comics business.

Fans entering the business already had a great appreciation for the power of the comics format to tell compelling and exciting stories. These fans usually had at least a basic knowledge of the creative, editorial, production and manufacturing, marketing and distribution processes involved in publishing comics.

However, some of these fans-turned-pros (FTPs) had attitudes that needed modifying before they could become consistently successful contributors to the field and to their company’s corporate culture.

Ha! You Didn’t Know Wolverine is also Logan, Weapon X, James Howlett and…
Some FTPs assumed that their readers were as steeped as they were in years of character/story/universe continuity.

For years, many comics were crafted so that the issue-relevant portions of a title’s long and short-term status quo was re-capped—integrated into the story of each issue. This information included character motivation, abilities/weaknesses and goals. (A very short blurb at the top of the splash page was often used to re-cap the character’s origin.) There were a couple of excellent reasons for this recapping.

For younger readers, the time between monthly issues seemed like an eternity.* Many readers also read a variety of comics titles. So, giving readers a bit of a re-cap “on the run” (within the course of the story) was standard operating procedure.

Perhaps an even bigger reason to give readers an “on the run” snapshot of the status quo was to attract and retain new readers. An ongoing comic title is engaged in a battle of attrition for readers. For various reasons, individual readers will stop buying a title, or stop buying comics altogether.** Unless an equal or greater numbers of new readers replace those who drift away from a comics title, that title will eventually end in cancellation.

When new readers try to latch onto an established series, it is up to the creators and editor to hook them. Every issue of a comic series is going to be someone’s first issue of that title. If a reader who is new to an established series is confused due to a lack of status quo information, that reader will probably not buy that series again. Some FTPs assumed that new readers would be intrigued by the mystery of what the heck was going on in a established title and would therefore keep coming back to learn more. For every masochistic reader that this approach worked on, there were probably dozens who gave up and tried something else—or gave up on comics.

Balancing the need to attract and hook new readers while not overloading regular readers with redundant information is a difficult craft to master. If done properly, within the flow of the story, establishing basic status quo info feels effortless and natural to the reader.***

Today, some comics don’t bother to establish the names of the characters early on in each issue—if at all. The creators and/or editor seem to assume that all of the readers should know the names before they pick up the book.

These days, the craft of re-establishing long and short-term status quo info “on the run” within each issue of a series seems to have fallen out of favor.

Part of the reason may be that many writers and editors were not trained in the craft of “on the run” re-capping. If there is going to be a re-cap at all, it’s much easier to use a text blurb re-cap at the start of the book than to try and slip in into the flow of the story. Also, since many comics today are meant to be collected into trade paperbacks, some creators and editors feel re-capping “on the run” every 22 pages will seem redundant to the collection’s readers. It’s easier to edit out the prose status quo re-caps for the collection than to alter “on the run” re-caps. Ideally, since only the info that is needed for a particular issue needs to be re-established, the “on the run” re-caps should be done in a way that work for both individual issues and as part of a collection.

Posting print comics online also throws a new wrinkle into this matter, especially if a 22 page issue is broken up into smaller chapters online.

Are You Your Audience?
Some FTPs assumed that they were creating comics for themselves and their friends – that they were their target audience. Due to the magic of self-fulfilling prophesies, this is truer today than it was through most of the ‘80s.

Until the late ‘80s, more comics were sold on the newsstand to “casual readers”. The dedicated fans who bought their comics in specialty stores took over after that.**** Sales in general were considerably higher then and the comics audience had a lot of casual readers who occasionally missed an issue of a title they liked.

The readership covered a wider range of age groups than today. The tastes of those readers who did become pros naturally changed as they aged. Some of the aesthetics and editorial approach of the comics they grew up became un-cool for them to use when producing their own comics. So they produced comics aimed at their own ever-advancing age group of fellow fans while increasingly ignoring the younger and more casual audience. This, along with distribution changes and competition for the audience from other media, lowered the number of younger and casual readers getting into comics.

Frustrated Creators Turned Editors
Some people who came on board the editorial department were frustrated comics creators. They could not get hired as writers but they were determined to get into comics. Being an editor was the next best thing for them. Some became very good editors.

Unfortunately, in some cases, instead of helping hone the work of their writers, an editor would exercise their frustrated creative muscles by force-feeding plots, dialogue or detrimental changes to their creative team.

The Hollywood Syndrome
As the direct market grew and the ability of star talent to sell books increased, some FTP editors became “star f@%&!#s.” Early on in his career, I published a book by Michael Allred at Marvel’s Epic imprint. About the time I started working with Allred, I was attending a convention in Dallas with a number of Marvel staffers and creators. The Marvel-associated creators in attendance ranged from star vets to newbies. Allred was in attendance and so the Marvel crew asked him along when we’d go to dinner after the convention closed. A FTP editor from another publisher asked us why we were wasting our time feeding and entertaining such a “non-A-list” talent as Allred. That comment confirmed my less than stellar opinion of this particular editor’s priorities and sensibilities. It’s also no surprise that this editor was not known for finding and developing new talent.

Writer/Artist Editors
As Bill Rienhold pointed out in his comments on the last entry, a number of writer/artists did well as editors at Marvel. These included Archie Goodwin, Al Milgrom, Mark Gruenwald, Bob Budiansky, Larry Hama. There were others who were known more as writer/editors but who had drawing skills they didn’t demonstrate to the public very often (Mike Carlin, Joey Cavalieri...)

There were also great Writer/Editors including Denny O’Neil and Ralph Macchio.

However, one of the best editors at Marvel was Louise “Weezie” Simonson (known as Weezie Jones before she married Walter Simonson). She established herself as a great writer long after she’d established herself as a top editor at Warren and then Marvel. A fair amount of the credit for the rise of the X-Men franchise can be given to Weezie for her calm guiding hand and ability to—
-Recognize quality talent
-Get the best work out of her teams
-Nix bad ideas or work without killing the enthusiasm of her creators. (“The Weezie Effect” as Ralph Macchio referred to it.)
-Get contesting creators to play nice with each other.

That’s it for this outing. As always, comments are very welcome!

*I’ve always wondered what was behind the seemingly-universal feeling that the sense of time speeds up as we age. A history professor I know suggested that since 5 years to a 10-year-old is 50% of the child’s lifetime, those 5 years seem much longer than they do to a 50-year-old because 5 years is only 10% of the 50-year-old’s lifetime.

** Competition for comics readers’ attention was always an issue but is even more intense today due to the universal popularity of electronic gaming. Comics readers sometimes lose interest in a title or in comics in general as they get involved with other media (especially electronic) or get involved with new social, academic or athletic activities.

*** Shortly after Tom DeFalco took over as Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief, he attended a convention where the writer and penciller of a Marvel title complained to him that their editor required that, each issue, they re-establish annoying information like names, powers, motivations and story status quo. When Tom returned to the Marvel offices, he took that editor aside and said, “I didn’t realize how good of an editor you were until these guys complained about you.”

**** This was due to the explosion in the comic book specialty store “direct market” and the decline of the newsstand market. Many newsstand retailers decided that they didn’t want to be bothered racking and returning relatively low-cost and low profit margin comics. Comics became too labor and time intensive to make it worthwhile for the newsstands to rack them.

Marvelous Tales: Making Comic Book Editors

The post “Diamonds Always Shine or Reviewing Art Submissions by the Ton” generated some interesting responses.

I’d like to expand a bit on the reply I made to Roy Richardson’s comment. Roy teaches comic art at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) in Atlanta. He wanted me to expand on how editors at Marvel were hired and why a few of them seemed ill-suited for the job.

Keep in mind that my comments generally refer to the period I was on staff at Marvel (1983 – 1996). The comics market grew substantially during most of that period. The editorial staff expanded accordingly as Marvel increased the number of publications it produced.

During that time, there was also a fair amount of staff turnover. So, the total number of people who were part of the Marvel editorial staff during that period was quite high – many dozens.

Also keep in mind that, despite the problems outlined below, the majority of those who served on Marvel’s editorial staff during my time there were, for the most part, good people doing a good job. There were only a relative few I’d classify as being highly unprofessional. Those relative few either didn’t possess the necessary aptitude or skills or had substantial negative attitude and/or other personality issues.

From the early 80’s on, most of Marvel’s editors were promoted up through the ranks of the editorial department. *

Some assistant editors transferred in from other positions and departments within Marvel. Occasionally, someone on Marvel’s staff would recommend a friend for an open assistant editor position.

Many Marvel editors began as high school or college interns who worked at Marvel for school credit. Ohio’s Antioch College seemed to always have students interning at Marvel. Antioch was the alma mater of Marvel’s president at the time, Jim Galton. Over the years, a number of Antioch interns ended up on Marvel’s editorial staff including Marie Javins, Sara Tuchinsky, Andrew Perry, Kevin Somers and Polly Watson.

The better interns were considered as candidates when assistant editor slots opened up. The best of those assistant editors became associate editors and, eventually, were promoted to become full editors. (Sometime in the early ‘90s, Marvel added the associate editor title as an intermediate step between assistant editor and editor.)

This was, in general, a good system. It meant Marvel’s editorial staff had a nice mix of experienced vets who could oversee the development of new editorial staffers. The new editorial staffers brought new enthusiasm, ideas and aesthetics with them.

In addition to whatever day-to-day hands-on experience the assistant editors acquired in the editorial office they worked in, they attended weekly classes for assistant editors. Executive editor Mark Gruenwald ran those classes. He sometimes had guest speakers present to the class (including Tom DeFalco, Bob Budiansky and me.) When Marvel added the associate editor position, I oversaw the training classes for that position.

Mark’s classes helped a lot of people grasp of the essential skills needed for the job. For those assistant editors assigned to work in offices run by an editor who lacked some of the essential skills, Mark’s classes were a godsend. Despite the training safety net provided by the assistant and associate editor classes, things occasionally went wrong. Here’s how—

-As Marvel and the comics industry in general grew through the ‘80s and early ‘90s, Marvel had to expand its editorial ranks to accommodate the additional publishing workload. A few people were promoted before they were ready due to the need for staff expansion created by the growing market. Some of those who were promoted before they were ready would have made fine editors if they had been allowed to grow and hone their skills at a lower editorial position.

-There was also a mistaken assumption that anyone who made a good assistant editor would automatically evolve into a good editor. People were sometimes promoted beyond their level of ability or comfort. Each position up the editorial chain (Assistant Editor, Associate Editor, Editor, Group Editor, Executive Editor, Editor-in-Chief) had additional creative and management responsibilities attached to it. A good assistant editor didn’t always have the aptitude to climb that ladder successfully.

-There was a period when then EIC Jim Shooter decided that he wanted to bring in some “blank slates”, non-fan boys that he could train to do things his way. This approach yielded disappointing results for Shooter and everyone else. In a somewhat related approach, during the early/mid ‘80s, DC hired some experienced prose novel editors with the idea that they could be trained to become comic book editors. Editing a visual storytelling medium is very different from editing prose (and vice versa). I don’t believe any of those editors lasted very long in the comics field. That doesn’t mean this approach couldn’t work. It just means that the candidates should have been screened for having an aptitude for visual storytelling.

-Most of those who joined the Marvel staff were comics fans, sometimes highly opinionated and naive comics fans. With experience and maturing over time, their love for comics could be combined with best practices and professionalism. Occasionally, someone came on staff with a naive know-it-all attitude and never woke up to the fact that they didn’t know it all.

-Some otherwise great editors had their sense of aesthetics stuck in an earlier time period. There were a lot of people who got into the business during the late ‘70s and early ‘80s who maintained their late ’70s aesthetic sensibilities as the world, and the comics audience, changed around them. Ideally, an editor should be aware that the audience’s aesthetics are changing and ride that fine line between being contemporary without trying to be too trendy.

-Except for the latter part of Shooter’s reign as EIC, it was actually pretty hard to get yourself fired from Marvel's editorial staff. I witnessed one editor repeatedly exhibit gross dereliction of duty. That editor was “taken to the woodshed” by his superior many times over an extended period before finally being fired. I too was reluctant to end anyone’s editorial career, so I have to take the heat for not pulling the trigger quickly in a couple of situations. I had to be pushed hard by one editor’s long series of professional and ethical blunders to finally put that editor on probation, a probation the editor ultimately failed. In another case, an Assistant Editor showed such bad judgment, unethical conduct and insubordination that I should have quickly axed him/her. However, the assistant’s pleas, and the support of that assitant's supervising editor, stayed my hand, allowing the assistant to repeat the offenses.

-Some editors were very strong in certain skill areas and almost useless in others. Someone could be a great plot and dialogue editor but couldn’t give an artist useful feedback on how to execute clear visual storytelling. Or, they might have great creative editing skills but were weak when it came to managing teams, projects and schedules.

Again, I want to make it clear that, out of the many dozens of editorial staffers who worked at Marvel during my time there, there were relatively few who did not do their job well.

Marvel also was blessed with a high number of exceptional editors and I was blessed with the opportunity to work with many of them. Marvel was a fabulous place to work and the vast majority of us working there couldn’t have asked for a better job or, during the latter ‘80s through the early ‘90s - the Hobson/DeFalco era, a better corporate environment to work in. We loved what we did and enjoyed hanging out together during and after work hours.


Marvel editorial and bullpen staffers often hung out outside of the office. In this shot from the late ‘8o’s, a group of us are enjoying an afternoon at Ralph Macchio’s pool. From left to right: Jack Morelli, Ralph Macchio (hidden inside of the inner tube), Eliot R. Brown, Carl Potts, David Wohl, Danny Fingeroth, Belinda G. (Mark G’s wife at the time), Walter Simonson, Mark Gruenwald, Louise "Weezie" Simonson and Bob Budiansky (Also pictured are Ralph’s sister and nephew)

*Shooter hired some editors from “outside” Marvel around 1980. By outside, I mean they did not work their way up Marvels’ editorial ranks. They were hired as full editors. These included Denny O’Neil, Al Milgrom, Louise “Weezie” Simonson, Larry Hama and, in 1983, me. Denny had a long editing and writing resume in the comics business. Al and Larry, both artist/writers, had served short stints as editors at DC. Weezie had been in charge of editorial at Warren Publications (Creep[y, Eerie, Vampirella) I’d spent a lot of time in the advertising biz which, combined with my limited comics creative output and endorsements by several key people, impressed Shooter enough for him to ask me to join the staff. There were also a few cases of former Marvel assistant editors leaving staff to work freelance for a while before returning to become staff editors. Bob Budiansky and Danny Fingeroth come to mind.

Out of the Box: Stereolithography

Stereolithography is one of several rapid prototyping systems that product designers use.

A 3D modeling program is used to build a virtual model of a product or part. The 3D file directs a pair of UV lasers in a vat of special resin. Wherever the lasers meet, the resin solidifies. A physical prototype of the model is created layer by layer.

Although stereolithography was introduced by 3D Systems back in the late ‘80s, the process still looks like something from a science fiction film.

Different resins have different properties. For instance, some resins are more flexible than others.

Many manufacturers use rapid prototyping models to create molds for everything from kitchen appliances to car parts.

I used stereolithography to create prototypes of a fishing lure design, The prototypes helped me refine the lure and I was eventually awarded a utility patent on the design.

Another rapid prototyping system uses ink jet technology to spray material and build up a physical model in layers.

It’s conceivable that in the future, as the range of resins and materials increases, stereolithography and other rapid prototyping processes will begin turning out finished products.

Recently, inkjets were used to spray living tissue (including stem cells) to create a functional two-chamber heart – how’s that for a finished product!

Imagine wanting a specific plastic product. Instead of driving to a store or waiting for an online order to arrive, you go online, download the product’s 3D file and have your own stereolithography machine “cook up” the part for you.

If needed, you could also customize the 3D model before building the part. Perhaps you’d want to shave off a corner in order to make sure the part fit just right on a specific irregular surface.

If you lived in a remote location, far from stores or FedEx/UPS/DHL delivery routes (Alaska? Tahiti? The moon?), you could not only create your own products, you could build your own replacement parts. Say the drive belt for your vintage Kirby vacuum cleaner breaks. Assuming you have the right resin, you could get the proper belt’s 3D model online and build a replacement part. You’d be back to sucking up dust devils in no time.

Could this be the next big app?

Well it’ll be a long time before stereolithography machines are priced low enough to be affordable to the masses. Perhaps, things will progress along the lines of Kinko’s. Printers and copy machines were once so expensive that few individuals and small companies owned their own. Kinko’s filled the niche. Now that’s no longer the case, Kinko’s deals mostly with large copy orders, oversized printing and offers other services that have yet to become affordable to the mass market.

As the technology and range of resins progresses, maybe the number of stereolithography service bureaus will expand Kinko’s-like, filling the need for consumers until the technology is affordable and small enough to go into their homes.

Your thoughts?

Diamonds Always Shine or Reviewing Art Submissions by the Ton

When I was trying to break into the comicbook business as an artist, I was frustrated by the responses, or lack thereof, to the submissions I mailed to the various editors. My submissions consisted of Xeroxes of story pages and character pin-ups.

I couldn’t see it at the time but my drawing was weak and the visual storytelling even weaker.

In some cases I’d get no response at all from the editor. Others would eventually send a “thanks but no thanks” form letter that contained no information on why the work wasn’t up to snuff, or what I could do to improve it.

That’s not surprising. Editors are generally very busy and are under no obligation to give detailed responses (or any response) to unsolicited submissions.

Years later, I joined Marvel Comics’ editorial staff. Due to the frustration I experienced when I was mailing samples to editors, I decided to respond to every submission I received. The office I inherited contained a large stack of unopened submissions, so I started there.

Envelope after envelope after envelope contained samples of very weak work. However, in that stack I found Art Adams’ samples.*

It was like going through a mountain of coal and finding a diamond.

Adams was the first of a number of talents I discovered in the submissions that poured into Marvel daily.

Since many of the submissions had similar weaknesses, I worked out a set of response letters to cover most situations. The letters were easily customizable so each response could be quickly tailored.

The responses basically thanked the artist for making the submission, told them that they needed to do a lot of work if they wanted to have a chance of improving to a professional level. The letter then outlined some drawing exercises to help them improve. The suggested exercises varied depending on what weaknesses the samples showed.**

The letter also recommended that the artists go to their library or otherwise try to hunt up these books:
For drawing skills—
-Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards
-Successful Drawing by Andrew Loomis (Also released under the title Three-Dimensional Drawing)

For visual storytelling techniques—
-The Five C's of Cinematography by Joseph V. Mascelli

When Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics - The Invisible Art was released, that title was added to the list.

There are Amazon links to all of these tiles along the right side of this blog.

Years after I left Marvel’s staff, artists still come up to me at conventions and express thanks for the drawing exercise and book recommendations they received when they sent submissions to Marvel.

My office became known as the place to send your samples if you wanted to get a response. So, the number of unsolicited submissions increased dramatically.

More mountains of coal with the occasional diamond mixed in.

I was careful not to tell artists of even the weakest work to give up drawing, even if I felt pretty sure they’d never be good enough to be hired.

Some editors and established artists sometimes bluntly told would-be comics artists to give up drawing and go into some other pursuit. A menial job (digging ditches, pumping gas) was often suggested as an alternative career.

These harsh reviewers had an interesting rationalization for their approach. Supposedly, if the would-be artist had the determination needed to improve his/her work to a professional level, he/she would get mad at the insulting remarks and try their best to prove the reviewer wrong.

That approach can work with some personality types but not others. It’s very possible that some extremely talented artists with very meek personalities were emotionally crushed by such comments and gave up drawing. In such cases, a more nurturing approach would have been more productive.

Insightful constructive criticism combined with targeted drawing exercises and research suggestions should do the trick for most personality types.

When Barry Smith (aka Barry Windsor Smith) began drawing comics for Marvel in the late 1960s, his work looked extremely amateurish to me. At the time, I thought that Smith would never amount to anything and would probably disappear from the scenes as soon as Marvel found someone else who could hold a pencil. Smith, however, continued getting assignments from Marvel.

Over a year or so, Smith’s work didn’t improve much. He finally kicked into high gear when he was assigned to the Conan comic where he rapidly developed into one of the better artists of his generation. The change in the quality of Smith’s work was amazing.

A lump of coal turned into a diamond. (Or, a very rough diamond that needed time to get polished.)

Smith’s dramatic example makes it almost impossible for me to tell an artist of even the weakest work that they should give up their dream of ever drawing professionally.

Instead, when confronted with very weak art executed by an under-motivated artist, I’d tell them—
-The odds of him/her making it to a professional level were extremely poor.
-Their only chance of reaching that goal will require hard work every day for years.
-They must decide if they have the dedication to put in all of that hard for just a small chance of making it.

Sometimes a little bit of knowledge is worse than no knowledge. This is true when reviewing art samples. One editor in particular comes to mind. He’d been observing me giving reviews at the Marvel’s booth at the San Diego Con and picked up on some catch phrases I used. He then began reviewing portfolios at the other end of the table I was sitting at.

As I continued to review portfolios, I occasionally heard snippets of what the other editor was saying to the artists lined up in front of him. At first, it sounded like he knew what he was talking about. I was pleasantly surprised because I’d never known this editor to have a sense of visual storytelling or any drawing knowledge. (How he came to be a comicbook editor is another story.)
However, when I stopped to observe him more closely, it was clear that the editor was using my terminology and phrases out of context, giving the artists some confusing and very bad advice in the process.

The young artists had just been given criticism and advice by a Marvel editor and I was worried that they might not know enough to dismiss the editor’s bad advice. So, I memorized the faces of some of these poor artists and later tried to track them down and “deprogram” them.

The work involved in reviewing and responding to all of the submissions the mailman dropped of daily was considerable, but then so were the rewards. Many talented diamonds turned up. Helping people to improve their work and begin successful careers was very satisfying for me.

I wonder what would have happened to my own artistic progress if someone had responded to my early submissions with solid criticism, advice and reference.

As always, your comments are welcome!

*I showed Art’s samples to my assistant editor, Ann Nocenti. She had been working on a new character and was looking for an artist to work with. Ann and Art eventually produced the Longshot limited series that helped launch both of their creative careers.

**I’ll go into some of these exercises in a future entry.