Original Art Size Change

[crankyoldman]

I recall reading somewhere that the size of original art changed during the sixties. Could anyone fill me in on the details of this? Did all publishers use the same size? If so, did they make the switch at the same time? What was the original size and has there only been one change? Did the publishers supply the drawing paper or board to the artists? If not, were the artists constrained to use the same size even if they were providing it themselves, because of the publisher's needs for uniform-size lettering and such? And why did the change occur at all?

I am particularly interested on when the art size at Marvel changed, though I am interested in the broader aspects of the subject as well. Recently I was rereading the Essential Capt. America Vol. 1 and I noticed that something was different about Kirby's art before the Gil Kane issues and afterwards. Although one of the first Kirby comics I ever read was a reprint of one of these immediate post-Kane issues and it has its appeal even now, it just seems to lack something that the earlier issues have, and I wondered if Kirby was initially having trouble adjusting to the change in art size.

[Allan Harvey]

The art size changed around late 1967. It was partly from a suggestion made by Murphy Anderson that at the new size the engravers could fit two pages side by side on their equipment rather than just one, thus speeding up the print time. With time being money, the idea was quickly adopted across the board.

The old size art was roughly 21" by 13.5", or "twice up" from printed size. This gave a 12" by 18" live area for the finished art. The new size is 11.5" by 17", with a 10" by 15" live area. Comic publishers supplied the paper, and latterly this is pre-printed with live areas and bleeds indicated. However, artists don't have to use that paper and can supply their own -- all that matters is that the art size is proportional to the finished comic size. Colleen Doran, for example, draws on paper sized 8" by 12".

With the reduction in size many artists were forced to adapt their style accordingly -- as you have noted with Jack Kirby. Apparently Kirby's first work at the new size was Tales of Suspense #95.

[T GUy]

A couple of quick addenda to Allan's thorough reply on this:

At Marvel, IIRR, the change occurs halfway through the Amazing Spider-Man Annual drawn by Larry Leiber, and the easiest way of spotting it is via the lettering - the letterer lettered at the same size throughout, and therefore the printed comics have a change in lettering size at the point where the original art board size changes.

Charlton let their artists work at whichever size they wanted, and Pat Boyette opted for what I suppose one might call 'once up' - the same size as the printed comics... (I think Ditko stuck with twice-up).

This is all from memory, btw.

[crankyoldman]

Thanks for the feedback, gents. It disproves my theory about Kirby though, because I thought I detected the change earlier than it occurred.

[MDG]

A couple of notes on page size:
I have a Murphy Anderson page from Hawkman 20 (June 67) that might mark the DC changeover. The art area is the "new" size but the page itself is larger and looks like it was cut down from a bigger piece. Other pages I have from 68 or so are "modern size," and have two holes punched in the top.

Several artists said they liked the smaller size because it let them "take in" the entire thing at once and they were able to better design the page as a unit rather than as individual panels.

I think John Severin did some later EC stories at a size close to printed--9 x 12 or so.

In the 70s, I read a blurb that Steve Ditko was going to start working in the large size again to "regain some of the detail" he felt was lost working smaller.

MDG

[scratchie]

In the 70s, I read a blurb that Steve Ditko was going to start working in the large size again to "regain some of the detail" he felt was lost working smaller.OK, that's kind of funny. I love Ditko's art, but he's not what I would consider a "highly detailed" artist. In the first Spider-Man Annual, he has a number of full-page splashes (one for each villain) that basically look like individual panels blown up. There's virtually no added detail at all (as there would be in, say, a Kirby splash).

[Bill Angus]

Really? I'm not familiar with the issue you're referrencing, but I've always found Ditko to be a very detailed artist - especially in b&w. The amount of stuff he'd cram into short stories for Eerie/Creepy, or for that matter in his super hero work was pretty impressive - moreso given that it still 'read' uncluttered.

[benday-dot]

Scratchie and Bill... regarding Ditko I think you are both right. I have never found Ditko to be a detail heavy artist either, say in the way early Wood, Perez, Windsor-Smith or the late great Gene Day were. And yes, lets add Kirby too. I don't place Kirby in the same illustration school as the others I've mentioned, but he was very particular about how his backgrounds and incidental devices looked. While he was not afraid of the naked background, where for instance one of his patented machines was needed to grace a panel, then nothing was left wanting to inpress the viewer with a sense of the fabulous and other worldliness of it... conveying an uncanny sense of the unreal and familiar at the same time.

But back to Ditko... He strikes me as being very tight with his pencil, all those perfectly placed fine lines. Etched in a sort of essentialist cartoon style to almost soar beyond the real (surreal?), to remain fluid and uncluttered (great word, Bill) enough to contrast with all the weight and density of the "naturalists", to convey only exactly what needs to be told, without excess or showy ornamentation, in the name of a story's ideal blend of plot, mood and outright thrill. That's what makes Ditko great... not his mastery of anatomy, or photo realism but of character. Of the inner drives of us all... our fears, loves, terrors, desires and somehow too what is wordless beyond all of that. Very ethereal things, I think, for a man who espoused the most striking and impossible clarities in his views of the world.

[T GUy]

Benday on Ditko: Very ethereal things, I think, for a man who espoused the most striking and impossible clarities in his views of the world.

Don't trust the teller: trust the tale.

On the other hand, it might be Ditko's Libertarian views which control, or at least affect, his ethereal art to give us work of such a high standard. Rather like a one-man Lennon and MacCartney.

Oh, allow me to back up a bit here... I have never found Ditko to be a detail heavy artist either, say in the way early Wood, Perez, Windsor-Smith or the late great Gene Day were. And yes, lets add Kirby too. I don't place Kirby in the same illustration school as the others I've mentioned
That'll be because Kirby is a cartoonist rather than an illustrator. Wood's chief attribute is the inability to leave a drawing alone when it's finished. He woulf much rather add another 100% of the necessary lines.

[benday-dot]

Benday on Ditko:

Don't trust the teller: trust the tale.

On the other hand, it might be Ditko's Libertarian views which control, or at least affect, his ethereal art to give us work of such a high standard. Rather like a one-man Lennon and MacCartney.

Ah... well put T Guy...

Hmmm, let's see... "Imagine there's no grey. It's easy if you try. No doubt below me. Above, just an I. Living for myself. Imagine there's no compromise. It isn't hard to do. A right or wrong to kill for. And no ambiguity too. I hope someday you'll go, and I can just be as one."

Or McCartney, who I suppose has already nailed it, with that God awful, "Ebony and Ivory"... how Ditkoesque!



Oh, allow me to back up a bit here...
That'll be because Kirby is a cartoonist rather than an illustrator. Wood's chief attribute is the inability to leave a drawing alone when it's finished. He woulf much rather add another 100% of the necessary lines.

Yes, I quite agree. I had the more loose sense of illustrate in mind. As in say, "Kirby drew a picture to illustrate the story."