I've said many times, both here on this blog as well as on Twitter, that as a youth I eschewed the black and white magazines. When the Essentials and Showcase Presents "phone books" were released, I purchased a few but generally turned up my nose at the presentation of color material without... color. But lately I'm starting to have an extreme change of heart.
Since I began my love affair with the Bronze Age magazines - all of about a year ago - I have come to the conclusion that much of the art actually looks better in it's created form, sans color. I think the inks often add enough depth that in some cases, color would severely detract from the image or even from the entire book. This is not at all to give the impression that I now dislike color comics... far from it.
I'll even share a personal weirdity of mine: I really don't care to read comics in black and white that originally saw the light of day in color. I'm again speaking of Marvel's Essentials line and DC's Showcase Presents. I don't have an explanation for that hangup, as I am a big fan of original art, whether in raw form or as reprinted in the fabulous IDW Artist Editions (and their imitators). I think my issues may have to do with the reproduction process. If the comics in the Essentials (for example) were reproduced from pre-color sources, then they'll look clean. However, and this example specifically speaks to the Essential Avengers, volume 3, when the comics appear to just be photocopies of color pages there can be a really muddy look to the art. It reminds me of an anecdote I heard about the filming of Schindler's List. If you've not seen it (recommended/not recommended - it's a powerful film that will stick with you for quite some time after viewing), 98% of the movie is in black and white. But on the sets, in order to get the tones Steven Spielberg desired, actors would often be clothed in odd combinations of colors - all so the black and white would filter correctly and look pleasing to the eye. The shades would "make sense" in the final product. This is what I'm getting at with my sometimes-complaints about color comics reproduced in B&W.
I hope the samples I've provided, all previously seen in reviews here, help to show the textures available in the 1970s magazines that you just couldn't get in color comics. And especially with the printing process and paper quality in the Bronze Age. Here, where I see shading it is intentional and done with a deft touch that could probably be mimicked by today's coloring processes; not so 40 years ago. But don't get me going on computerized coloring...
Where do you stand (or sit) on this issue? Have the magazines of which you've partaken pleased your eyes? Do you find value in these works as art? Or are you a "color snob"? Jump in with a comment, and hopefully a nice discourse gets rolling. Thanks in advance!
Like you, Doug, I initially didn't think much of b&w comics. However, a buddy of mine in elementary school was really into Conan and had a lot of issues of Savage Sword - so I gained an appreciation for the art in those, and then in other black and white magazines.
ReplyDeleteBut like you, I still prefer reading comics originally published in color, well, in color. The b&w phonebooks are a necessary second-best for me, usually because they're inexpensive, although in a few cases I upgraded to color when I could find reasonably priced reprint editions (most notably, where I used to have the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne run on X-men in two Essentials, I now have the Panini digests that collect all of the same issues).
I have done the replacing thing as well, seeking solid color reprints of color comics.
DeleteI should add to this discussion that the reproduction of the B&W material can be all over the board as well. Paper quality tends to be a major factor, it seems. But source material in production is critical.
Doug
Yeah, I was always a colour guy too, but I've learned to appreciate B&W art. I think it depends on the artist to some extent ... some artists look great in B&W, others not so much. And B&W art does seem to work better with certain genres--fantasy and sci-fi especially.
ReplyDeleteMike, I just left a comment to a Twitter response (fellow said he'd held onto a couple of volumes of the Essential Tomb of Dracula because he liked the way Colan/Palmer looked in B&W) that I loved the Essential Silver Surfer in B&W.
DeleteDoug
I think it depends on how detailed the artist's work is. For me, people like Neal Adams, Alfredo Alcala and Barry Smith look better in black and white. Artists with a simpler style, like John Romita, look better in colour.
ReplyDeleteAlthough... owning a couple of the Romita Spider-Man Artist Editions, I can speak to their beauty.
DeleteDoug
Having been first exposed to Marvel via the b/w weekly reprints, it's never been an issue for me, to be honest, and when the USA black & whites started coming in, with textured or tonal art by people like Alcala, Nebres, Gan and so on, I loved 'em. And then when Warren came in, even better!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the muddiness of stuff like that Essential Avengers, and I agree with Steve's point about it suiting different artists, but real b/w art? Where the artist uses the medium properly? Oh hell yeah.
Oh, and I think Terry Austin's inking on Byrne in those Essential X-Men looks amazing! In b/w you can really appreciate the man's skill.
ReplyDeletePete -
ReplyDeleteExcellent points. For certain artists or artistic combinations, there can be a whole lot of merit to the Essentials (or DC's Showcase Presents).
Doug
Color comics are ever near and dear to me. That said, I've always had an eye for b/w art. Especially love the opportunity or provides to study an artist's line work. And shading, whether through wash, pantone or crosshatching, it's a pleasure to pore over. That's one big plus to reading Savage Tales and Savage Sword of Conan. All that gorgeous art. Besides the obvious Smith and Buscema there were treats such as the Kane/Adams gem in Savage Tales 4.
ReplyDeleteRedartz, I love that the chunky Dark Horse reprints from Savage Sword also include the Savage Tales material. Just a couple of evenings ago I saw a Barry Smith-illustrated REH poem. Wow! I will feature that soon on this space.
DeleteDoug
I was recently looking thru the first BRAVE AND THE BOLD b/w phonebook, digging the Nick Cardy art in its natural state, appreciating the spontaneous inks, the bold chiaroscuro, etc. Convinced that color wouldn’t really add anything of value, I could save some shelf space and pass up the color TPB of the same material. Then I flipped thru the BAB SILVER AGE OMNIBUS at my LCS. And of course it looked beautiful. So now I have both.
ReplyDeleteThis happens to me all the time.
I guess my point is, it’s an “Apples and Oranges” thing for me. I don’t prefer one over the other.
- b.t.
Though I have to admit, there are certain artists whose work simply does not look that great in b/w. Things that always bothered me about Sal Buscema’s stuff are exaggerated in b/w. Bob Brown inked by Mike Esposito is barely tolerable in color — in b/w, egad, no thanks! However, Brown inked by Don Heck is kinda fun to look at in b/w.
ReplyDeleteThere are a bunch of comics that I wish could have been published in the b/w phonebook format before it went belly-up — John Buscema’s Sub-Mariner run, Robbins’ Invaders, Steranko’s Nick Fury, etc. And for all the times the Wein and Wrightson Swamp Things have been reprinted, couldn’t they have done it in b/w just once? (The IDW Artist Edition doesn’t count.)
-b.t.