|
Post by commond on Oct 1, 2023 5:51:49 GMT -5
I wanted to speak about Toth's legacy since that was part of the original post.
There's no doubt, in my mind, that Toth is one of the greatest artists in the history of the medium. He was highly influential on a number of artists whom I enjoy, especially artists who work in black and white. Due to his cantankerous nature, the fallings out he had with people, and the bridges he burnt, he doesn't have the types of runs that define other great artists. He did plenty of great work, but it tends to be short stories. That's why it's often best to read his work in collected form, instead of hoping you're going to stumble upon the great Alex Toth story. He was a perfectionist to a fault and clashed with creators in a number of situations where he could have continued to produce high quality work. He was harsh on himself and considered his career something of a disappointment, but his true legacy is that people are going to continue studying his work for as long as comics are produced. During his lifetime, he would have been celebrated more if he hadn't been so difficult. He would have been viewed as an Eisner or a Kirby if he had been warmer to his fellow creators, especially at conventions and the like, but cartoonists will continue to study his compositions long after we're gone, so not a bad legacy all told.
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Oct 1, 2023 7:40:39 GMT -5
He has some Black Canary back-ups in Action Comics #418-419, 425, 431, and 495-497. I think you mean Adventure Comics. Black Canary was only in the first two issues; Toth drew Challengers of the Unknown in the last three, which were digest sized.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2023 7:50:35 GMT -5
I think it speaks to Toth's strengths as an artist that he was equally adept at crime, war and romance comics. He could also draw horror strips and Westerns. He excelled at drawing cars and airplanes. He could do humour and cartoony stuff. And he could even do superheroes. There are a lot of guys from the same era where folks say their superhero stuff wasn't that great but they excelled at romance. Toth excelled at everything. I think that's an excellent measure to consider, his versatility seems tremendous to your point. That was really hitting me last night as I was looking through all the great recommendations of material folks had provided, I was not aware of how much ground he had covered throughout his career. I wanted to speak about Toth's legacy since that was part of the original post. There's no doubt, in my mind, that Toth is one of the greatest artists in the history of the medium. He was highly influential on a number of artists whom I enjoy, especially artists who work in black and white. Due to his cantankerous nature, the fallings out he had with people, and the bridges he burnt, he doesn't have the types of runs that define other great artists. He did plenty of great work, but it tends to be short stories. That's why it's often best to read his work in collected form, instead of hoping you're going to stumble upon the great Alex Toth story. He was a perfectionist to a fault and clashed with creators in a number of situations where he could have continued to produce high quality work. He was harsh on himself and considered his career something of a disappointment, but his true legacy is that people are going to continue studying his work for as long as comics are produced. During his lifetime, he would have been celebrated more if he hadn't been so difficult. He would have been viewed as an Eisner or a Kirby if he had been warmer to his fellow creators, especially at conventions and the like, but cartoonists will continue to study his compositions long after we're gone, so not a bad legacy all told. Thank you for that assessment and overall summary, that really does hit at the heart of my question on comic book legacy and gives me much better perspective. And maybe one thing I'll add now more as a statement versus a question. I'm not sure if animation is everyone's thing here (whether it be appreciation as an art form or just general interest), but I do think it's a huge part of his legacy as well and that body of work is really impressive in its own right. His seemingly unending well of creativity during those years, I really can't think of anyone else in action animation who had such an incredible sense of style and design sensibility. And that work reached such large audiences being associated with network television. I look at his design work like just these 2 examples (but SO many more) and I often feel like this is pretty much as good as it gets:
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 1, 2023 8:07:15 GMT -5
During his lifetime, he would have been celebrated more if he hadn't been so difficult. He would have been viewed as an Eisner or a Kirby if he had been warmer to his fellow creators, especially at conventions and the like, but cartoonists will continue to study his compositions long after we're gone, so not a bad legacy all told. I don't think that is it. Maybe a part of not being embraced was his personality, but the larger aspect I think is he had no great lasting work. The art itself was always outstanding, but he has nothing to compare with The Spirit or the many, many Kirby masterpieces. People point to Bravo for Adventure or Zoro or Hot Wheels, all fun books with great art, but not something fans have talked about for decades like the others. Great work, but never in the service of great comics.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Oct 1, 2023 8:42:40 GMT -5
During his lifetime, he would have been celebrated more if he hadn't been so difficult. He would have been viewed as an Eisner or a Kirby if he had been warmer to his fellow creators, especially at conventions and the like, but cartoonists will continue to study his compositions long after we're gone, so not a bad legacy all told. I don't think that is it. Maybe a part of not being embraced was his personality, but the larger aspect I think is he had no great lasting work. The art itself was always outstanding, but he has nothing to compare with The Spirit or the many, many Kirby masterpieces. People point to Bravo for Adventure or Zoro or Hot Wheels, all fun books with great art, but not something fans have talked about for decades like the others. Great work, but never in the service of great comics. Well, that depends on your point of view. I don't think it's that hard to find a Toth piece that is better than anything Kirby or Eisner were capable of. Personally, I think he was a better artist than both of them. It's true that he didn't produce iconic work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Eisner's work and Kirby's works are better on an artistic level.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2023 8:57:46 GMT -5
You guys are both touching on themes that generated some of questions on this. The fact that I couldn't really think of a specific comic book work I associated Toth with speaks maybe a little to what kirby101 is saying. Whereas I think even most folks casually acquainted with comics can rattle off the Spirit (even if they've never read it) and certainly Kirby needs no explanation. At the same time, commond , you are speaking to the other side of my thoughts. I too personally consider Toth the superior artist from what I know of all three at least from a draftsmanship standpoint. Perhaps narrative storytelling ability is more balanced in comparison? Others here will be far more equipped to answer that than me, but my impression is yes. Toth's aesthetic sense though is something extra special IMO.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 1, 2023 9:20:01 GMT -5
I don't think that is it. Maybe a part of not being embraced was his personality, but the larger aspect I think is he had no great lasting work. The art itself was always outstanding, but he has nothing to compare with The Spirit or the many, many Kirby masterpieces. People point to Bravo for Adventure or Zoro or Hot Wheels, all fun books with great art, but not something fans have talked about for decades like the others. Great work, but never in the service of great comics. Well, that depends on your point of view. I don't think it's that hard to find a Toth piece that is better than anything Kirby or Eisner were capable of. Personally, I think he was a better artist than both of them. It's true that he didn't produce iconic work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Eisner's work and Kirby's works are better on an artistic level. But that is not what we were talking about. You specifically talked about his legacy and why he wasn't as celebrated as much as Kirby or Eisner, not who was the better artist. And it is the very fact that he did not create any iconic work like the other two. Who was the better artist is a completely different discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2023 9:35:42 GMT -5
And it is the very fact that he did not create any iconic work like the other two. I bet many more people have watched and remember Space Ghost, Herculoids, Birdman, Sealab 2020, and Shazzan than have ever actually read the Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 1, 2023 9:39:25 GMT -5
The Zorro work was probably his most iconic comic book work and what most fans talked about in relation to the artist. At the same time, pros talked loads about him, in glowing terms, especially about his storytelling and minimalist art. One of the reasons he was so goo at animation was that he reduced his art to the most necessary lines, rather than loading it with fancy feathering or hatching or similar detail. He didn't feel the need to draw every crease in clothing, just the most necessary to give the feel of it. He mastered expression and body language. Chaykin spoke endlessly of Toth in an interview with the Comics Journal and his own attempts to pare down his lines tot he most essential. Kane and others of his crowd said much the same thing.
As to Toth's personality, there is a very good documentary piece about him on the Space Ghost and Birdman dvd sets (WB included it on both) which talks to his kids, Bruce Timm (who knew him in animation) and Mark Chiarello (who was a friend and helped get him to contribute to Batman: Black and White). There is much discussion about Toth's personality and fallings out. It is never outright said; but highly implied that he had mental health issues, possibly bipolar (certainly depression). Some noted his withdrawal after the death of his wife, Guyla, and that he got to where he never left his house.
If you want Toth, in all his glory, the three volume set from IDW is the place to go. It features a detailed biography, a ton of his work, from all stages, including his model sheets and presentation art. They Are Genius Isolated, Genius Illustrated and Genius Animated and are gorgeous and well worth the cost. The animated one is packed with things, from the Cambria Studios Space Angel series, to the classic 60s Hanna-Barbera adventure shows (his Three Musketeers designs make me wish he had done a graphic novel adaptation of Dumas), the Super Friends, right up to Bionic 6. Where else can you find presentation art for a potential Farrah Fawcett cartoon? Or the make-up of a very different Legion of Doom, complete with the Joker and Dr Sivana? You can even see Space Ghost, without his mask.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 1, 2023 10:00:26 GMT -5
Well, that depends on your point of view. I don't think it's that hard to find a Toth piece that is better than anything Kirby or Eisner were capable of. Personally, I think he was a better artist than both of them. It's true that he didn't produce iconic work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Eisner's work and Kirby's works are better on an artistic level. But that is not what we were talking about. You specifically talked about his legacy and why he wasn't as celebrated as much as Kirby or Eisner, not who was the better artist. And it is the very fact that he did not create any iconic work like the other two. Who was the better artist is a completely different discussion. Part of this, though, is that comic fandom is that comic fandom is so ludicrously super-hero obsessed, that unless you worked predominantly in that genre the nerds aren’t going to remember you. The fact that Toth is an acknowledged legend despite doing limited work on super-heroes (and then mostly very early in his career) speaks to his impact and the quality of his work. You also have to keep in mind that Toth was not, by and large, a cartoonist, but was at the mercy of the scripts he was given. And he absolutely refused to work Marvel-style because he wasn’t being paid to be a writer. In my opinion he’s leagues beyond Kirby as an artist and is every bit as good as Eisner and better when he’s at his best. He wasn't as inventive as either, but as a pure artist I prefer his work.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 1, 2023 11:31:12 GMT -5
And it is the very fact that he did not create any iconic work like the other two. I bet many more people have watched and remember Space Ghost, Herculoids, Birdman, Sealab 2020, and Shazzan than have ever actually read the Spirit. So, we aren't talking about Comics anymore? And how many people who watched those shows know the name Alex Toth, as oppose to most who read the Spirit and Kirby's works.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Oct 1, 2023 11:31:59 GMT -5
I think Toth is probably the best artist to work in mainstream comics in the sense of: hand him a script of any quality and you're going to get something excellent back.
His rep among a lot of "fans" is low because he's not associated with any single company or period, let alone a character. And unlike a lot of excellent comic artists where if you see a half dozen or so stories by them, you've probably covered what they can do, with Toth you've still barely scratched the surface. ( My bias may be showing here.)
But here's a good place to start:
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 1, 2023 11:39:52 GMT -5
But that is not what we were talking about. You specifically talked about his legacy and why he wasn't as celebrated as much as Kirby or Eisner, not who was the better artist. And it is the very fact that he did not create any iconic work like the other two. Who was the better artist is a completely different discussion. Part of this, though, is that comic fandom is that comic fandom is so ludicrously super-hero obsessed, that unless you worked predominantly in that genre the nerds aren’t going to remember you. The fact that Toth is an acknowledged legend despite doing limited work on super-heroes (and then mostly very early in his career) speaks to his impact and the quality of his work. You also have to keep in mind that Toth was not, by and large, a cartoonist, but was at the mercy of the scripts he was given. And he absolutely refused to work Marvel-style because he wasn’t being paid to be a writer. In my opinion he’s leagues beyond Kirby as an artist and is every bit as good as Eisner and better when he’s at his best. He wasn't as inventive as either, but as a pure artist I prefer his work. This is also not true, since the likes of Williamson, Wood, Kurtzman, Crumb,etc.. who did not work much or at all with Superheroes, and are looked upon as Gods.
As for Kirby, no he was far from the best draftsman in comics, what he is, is the greatest comic book creator who ever lived. I doubt Toth would say he could do comics better than Kirby. But when it comes to comparing those in the Pantheon, it just comes down to personal taste.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 1, 2023 11:43:31 GMT -5
And I want to be clear. I am not knocking Toth's ability or work. I am simply saying why I think he is not regarded in the comic book world as highly as other all time greats.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2023 12:00:38 GMT -5
I bet many more people have watched and remember Space Ghost, Herculoids, Birdman, Sealab 2020, and Shazzan than have ever actually read the Spirit. So, we aren't talking about Comics anymore? And how many people who watched those shows know the name Alex Toth, as oppose to most who read the Spirit and Kirby's works. I think you might need to re-read my original post per below Plus I really was just throwing that out in a little fun because I found it funny when you really think about how innovative Toth was when he had creative freedom to kind of go crazy, the change in medium really afforded that it seems. So I ask the experts here...how would you summarize his historical importance overall specifically as a comic book artist, and what are considered his essential works/achievements? And would you say these have been overshadowed at all by the name he made for himself in animation?While he was not the only comic book artist to work in both fields, he does seem to stand out as maybe a little more unique in terms of significant accomplishments in both areas, and hence my questions as I try to better understand his overall enduring legacy!I also think asking how many people who watched those shows remember his name is maybe picking a fine point. You can certainly argue name recognition itself, but overall I think it should be considered what he actually accomplished and how the product itself stands the test of time. Though I would say in "animation circles" (I'm big into animation history), his name is VERY well known. And I'm not trying to shift every viewpoint back to animation even though I keep bringing that back up, but I am trying to get to a balanced perspective. My original premise again is founded on the thought that the notable contributions to both mediums sets him apart to me to some extent. I do appreciate all the great comic book career analysis people are providing because that was of course a big part of my original question per above, I'm trying to "bring it all together" if you will for his overall career.
|
|