Back to photo list

MURPHY ANDERSON

MURPHY ANDERSON
The picture above is taken automatically from flickr.com, if there is something related to the picture please visit and contact flickr.com
MURPHY ANDERSON
Showcase 35

Murphy Anderson was born in 1926 in Asheville, North Carolina, and has enjoyed a comic book art career spanning over half a century. Excelling as both a penciller and inker, Anderson worked mainly for DC Comics, starting in the late 1930s shortly after the Superman phenomenon hit.

During the early years, he worked on characters including Hawkman, the Spectre, Zatanna and, in the newspaper comic strip genre, the daily syndicated version of Buck Rogers.

Anderson is also responsible for defining the earliest images of Adam Strange and the Atom, as well as the modern age revamps of Batman, Flash, Superman and various other titles also featuring them. Such titles included the original Justice League Of America, which itself was a revamp of the classic Golden Age comic series called the Justice Society Of America.

Later, during the 1970s, with Anderson's frequent collaborator, penciler Curt Swan, their artwork on Action Comics and Superman during the 1970s was dubbed by fans as "Swanderson."

But beyond that, his unusually clean style and detailed brushwork set the bar to a higher talent level, particularly regarding the DC comics of the Silver Age, with a unique style that has never quite been equaled.

The quality of his fancier than usual style has only been approached by very few other artists, however even at that they took much longer to get their best results. Anderson, however, was not only always able to produce his extra slick "magazine look" polish for comic books, but he did all such fancy extra detailing under deadline as well.

It also could not have hurt Anderson's attitude towards the fantasy world of comic books that even before he became one of the top 10 greatest comics artists of all time, he was first and foremost a diehard science fiction fan. In fact he is still a member of First Fandom, and began his career working for the legendary 1940s pulp magazine, Planet Stories. (He also contributed to its sister publication, Planet Comics.)

One might have assumed he would be have been retired as of the mid-2000s, but he instead began supervising Murphy Anderson Visual Concepts, which provides color separations and lettering for comic books. His son runs that now, but the elder Anderson still keeps busy painting cover recreations of his classic comics for display and sale through Diamond Galleries.

Among Anderson's many accolades are:

1962 Alley Award for Best Inker;

1963 Alley for Artist Preferred on Justice League of America;

1964 Alleys for Best Inking Artist and for Best Comic Book Cover (Detective Comics #329, with penciler Carmine Infantino);

1965 Alleys for, again, Best Inking Artist and Best Comic Book Cover (The Brave and the Bold #61), as well as for Best Novel (an untitled story in Showcase #55, with writer Gardner Fox).

Anderson was inducted into the Jack Kirby Hall of Fame in 1988.

www.murphyanderson.com/

THE EVOLUTION OF WHAAM !

POSTED ON FEB 23 2011 AT 8:15 AM BY THE BEAT
Matt Feazell
Via Douglas Wolk.
PS: While looking for art of this post, this Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein Flickr page came up. Good times.
PPS: It says quite a bit about Lichtenstein’s esthetic that he omitted the line “The enemy has become a flaming star!” from the original. Talk about leaving out the best part!

Al™
02/23/2011 AT 1:59 PM
I wonder how much credit was given to the original comic guys back then, Irv Novick, Ross Andru and those guys. Anybody know?
Seeing as how Roy was, shall we say, strongly inspired by their toil.
I do realize that Roy has redrawn Novick’s art and that this panel does not qualify as a complete swipe.
Xenos
02/26/2011 AT 4:22 PM
How much credit? None. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
This is why I consider Lichtenstein to be an overrated hack. People talk about him in the mainstream as a comic artist and promoting comic art. Bull and crap. He ripped them off and sold their work as his own in high art circles. Sure, people like Joe Kubert say they don’t care they got ripped off by him. (Kubert’s art of an attack dog ironically on the copyright page of the Lichtenstein Foundtaion.) Yet I still can’t stand the guy.

www.comicsbeat.com/2011/02/23/the-evolution-of-whaam/#com...

MINTEES

Roy Lichtenstein?
Posted June 19th, 2010 by mynameismartijn

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

This website scared the shit out of me? What the f*?
Pretty crazy huh?

Examples: MANY
and there's tons more where that came from!

and before this whole thing turns into an accusing people post, I'm just making a remark, 'cause I was wft!?

37 Comments

8-bit ZOMBIE said about 11 months ago

Wow. I'm not very familiar with his work but I know the name. That's a bummer.

The originals panels he traced almost always look better in my opinion.

Sam Montana said about 11 months ago

Yeah, this is pretty 'old' news, but it's still pretty damn bad. I used to be a big fan of his work before I knew all this.

Visual Singularities said about 11 months ago

This was never a secret in Lichtensteins day. The critics generally dismissed his work at first for this very reason. Then he was able to sell some people on the idea that he was making a statement about how mass media portrays the subjects he was copying.

Here's a quote from him defending his art, but also admitting it's total bullshit.

•"The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content. However, my work is entirely transformed in that my purpose and perception are entirely different. I think my paintings are critically transformed, but it would be difficult to prove it by any rational line of argument"

Personally I'd rather see Jack Kirby, John Buscema, Alex Toth, etc. get their due as artists and be hung in galleries rather than some oversized copies that make a weak statement.

dovemans said about 11 months ago

nope he's right, I don't think he ever made it a secret either?

atomicchild said about 11 months ago

yeah this was all obvious...and everyone knew all he was doing was taking comic strips and making them fine art

dovemans said about 11 months ago

antzs69 said: dovemans said: nope he's right, I don't think he ever made it a secret either?

•Im sure the facts are right. and i get the intention. but to me, there is a MASSIVE difference between appropriating an inanimate object and turning it into fine art, and outright plagiarism. You could argue that he never kept it a secret, but it was never made obvious either, and i personally believe that is unethical, and wrong.

•what's the difference?

Sam Montana said about 11 months ago

Wasn't pop art about bringing art to lower classes, and not about bringing 'low culture' into 'high culture', or am I misunderstanding something here?

I did a whole paper on this stuff once.

atomicchild said about 11 months ago

I think people forget what the whole movement was about.....messing with what people thought of as art and they did it and people bought it up

Chaddoesdesign said about 11 months ago

I can't help but feel this post title is a tincy bit racist.

a_mar_illo said about 11 months ago

maxD said: Mozart also used popular tunes in his compositions without revealing that.
•There is even a whole art genre called 'appropriation art' where artworks are made from existing, non-art objects. Like Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst.

And indeed, Lichtenstein never was secretive about it. Why should he ? He made something new from something that was already there. He made an interpretation. Or is it stealing ?
•Franz Kline was actually working for some years as a cartoonist before turning to 'fine art'. His main works are extreme blow-ups of comic book brush work, to a scale that made it abstract. Is he stealing ?
•Claes Oldenburg would blow up a simple thing like a hammer to enormous size and call it his own work. The only thing he added was the scale, like Lichtenstein. Stealing ?

Interpretation IMO.

Actually, I'm surprised that this is news for so many people. Whatever happened to education ?

Perfect explanation, wow!

He used those images like Warhol used Tomato soup cans, these things were not considered real design back then,
Also do not forget that Lichtenstein did not have software like PS (oh yeah, surprise...), he had a tiny little piece of paper and blew them up to enormous paintings, this has nothing to do with copying/stealing, it is creating something new,
come on, people...

CalvinOutLoud said about 11 months ago

Chaddoesdesign said: I can't help but feel this post title is a tincy bit racist.

Isn't this entire site? 95% of us are not fans of Indos.

a_mar_illo said about 11 months ago

CalvinOutLoud said: Chaddoesdesign said: I can't help but feel this post title is a tincy bit racist.

Isn't this entire site? 95% of us are not fans of Indos.

Here´s one of the 5%

Chaddoesdesign said about 11 months ago

CalvinOutLoud said: Chaddoesdesign said: I can't help but feel this post title is a tincy bit racist.

Isn't this entire site? 95% of us are not fans of Indos.

You're right, I'm sure all 200 million people of Indonesia are here on emptees stealing your art.

G-rant said about 11 months ago

I find it funny how emptees gets mad about somebody doing something like this even if it was decades ago and then the majority are 100% behind a brand that's claim to fame is parody shirts. I like Johnny Cupcakes and I like Roy, all emptees is now is people getting their panties in a bunch when some cries rip.

This site used to be cool, not it's nothing but arguing about how somebody ripped somebody else off.

G-rant said about 11 months ago

antzs69 said: G-rant said: I find it funny how emptees gets mad about somebody doing something like this even if it was decades ago and then the majority are 100% behind a brand that's claim to fame is parody shirts. I like Johnny Cupcakes and I like Roy, all emptees is now is people getting their panties in a bunch when some cries rip.

This site used to be cool, not it's nothing but arguing about how somebody ripped somebody else off.

Nobody is getting mad. It is a highly debated topic, with highly conflicting opinions. if that scares you, then thats your hang up.

Also, if you cannot see the difference between this and parody, then... wow.

Did I ever say I couldn't tell the difference? I know what the difference is, it's just that every time I get on this web site it's nothing but finger pointing.

atomicchild said about 11 months ago

heavyprints said: I think you should not be all "wow" at Grant. There's some major pieces of the puzzle that you are missing.

The ideals of art you have presented here are naive at best. What makes something art, and what makes its statement valid are not all based around the subject of the art.

If you actually looked at the images you'd realize that he approached the lines, shading, colors, and more from a completely different angle. He took something that was considered worthless at the time and revamped it to compete in the fine art market, in an attack on the basic idea of what makes art good at the time.

Noone here has acted like your opinion is stupid, you should have the same respect for them. Alot of what Grant said is true, everyone here with a copy of photoshop feels like they know the first thing about art, and it's not true. The blatant racism and "rip" stupidity on this site is a constant reminder of the class of artists who are inhabiting it.

this all day

Tidsfordriv said about 11 months ago

rawkid said: CalvinOutLoud said: I can't help but feel this post title is a tincy bit racist.

This and nobody gettin' mad about this stuff. Actually it's not really racist but rather a generalizing statement. But the mods should be all over this as well if you ask me.

It doesn't surprise me though. This is what you said in another thread:
mynameismartijn:Indonesia can suck my shaved balls. what a fucked over country. stay the fuck off emptees.

Just change the title. I know the situation is fucked up when it comes to Indonesian rippers but this is simply uncalled for.

Noone likes a ripper. And alright, the majority of rippers found on this site may well be from Indonesia.
But even then there's a fine line between controversial humouristic statements and obvious racism aimed at an entire country, and that line sadly seems to be crossed more and more often on this site.

This:
a_mar_illo said: CalvinOutLoud said: Chaddoesdesign said: I can't help but feel this post title is a tincy bit racist.

Isn't this entire site? 95% of us are not fans of Indos.

Here´s one of the 5%

Evanimal said about 11 months ago

from the comments, sums it up well.

"Lichtenstein was a pioneer of pop art in the same way as andy warhol. warhol himself fabricated copies of detergent boxes, press photos, etc. however, to reach back even further, van gogh did copies, almost exact in some instances, of japanese woodprints. picasso even said that good artists copy while the great ones steal. this is no new concept and really shouldn't effect the legacy of a great artist."

Evanimal said about 11 months ago

Art history people, if art school gives you one thing for sure, it's lots and lots of art history, which is important when you start opening your mouth and trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

treycook said about 11 months ago

I for one don't like when an illustrator traces an illustration and claims to have illustrated the piece, whether or not there are minor tweaks. This goes for any avenue of art.

Also you guys really need to think about whether or not you are being xenophobic.

againstbound said about 11 months ago

Yeah, I think that was the point of Lichtensteins work.

Evanimal said about 11 months ago

antzs69 said: Evanimal said: Art history people, if art school gives you one thing for sure, it's lots and lots of art history, which is important when you start opening your mouth and trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

If that was directed at me, then you should know that i was fully aware of the comments, and facts bought up in this thread beforehand. I do not have to agree with his work from an ethical stand point to understand what his work was trying to achieve.

No more overall. You responded smartly and succinct.

collisiontheory said about 11 months ago

Can't believe you still haven't changed the title of the thread. It should be 'Was Lichtenstein named Jack?' Coz he's the Ripper. Ha! Seriously though.

And Evanimal is right. Art History 101. These guys broke every single rule of what art is all about, beginning with Duchamp.. Think about it in music terms. These guys are the punks of the art world. They paved the way for us to do what we do.

labyrinth said about 11 months ago

againstbound said: Yeah, I think that was the point of Lichtensteins work.

It was.

Really ?

mintees.com/talk/155979-roy-lichtenstein
Date: 2005-09-06 00:58:37



http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html Anderson Murphy

Visit : MissIndonesia.net

Comments

No comment found!

Members of Indonesia-Furniture.com | Partnered with Indonesia-Export.com
Powered by IndonesiaCommerce.com | Promoted by IndonesiaWebPromotion.com


Visit Archipelago Country, A Tropical Paradise In The World : EastJava.com and Indonesia-Tourism.com