Animation Artifacts &Bill Peckmann &Comic Art &Disney 15 Apr 2010 06:56 am
Carl Barks Duck Paintings
- When I was young I read the Carl Barks’ Donald Duck comics and the Uncle Scrooge comics and anything else the man turned out. I was religious about it and had to combat a parent who didn’t understand the importance of comic books in a young person’s life. To which end, I was on the receiving end of many a punishment when a rare Donald Duck or somesuch other comic would be found.
Oddly enough, this didn’t transfer to my adulthood where I find myself not at all interested in the oil paintings Barks did of Donald and the gang. Bill Peckmann sent me a few of these paintings, and immediately upon seeing them again, I turned my nose away but knew, just the same, that I’d be posting them. There are too many people that love these things.
So for you, the folk who love Carl Barks’ lame attempt at “art”, I surrender this post. I thank Bill Peckmann and hope you enjoy the four following paintings.
1(Click any image you’d like to enlarge.)
2
3
4
on 15 Apr 2010 at 7:51 am 1.David Gale said …
I agree that they are lame when you think of them as “art.” Obviously they’re gonna look terrible next to a Rembrandt. But they’re fantastic “popular art” or “entertainment” or “kitsch” or whatever.
on 15 Apr 2010 at 9:39 am 2.Stephen Macquignon said …
When I read this I said if you want to enjoy oil painting of Mickey & Donald you should look at Tom Everhart artwork. But all I come up with is his acrylics of the Peanuts, if it is not Tom then who am I thinking of with a similar style?
on 15 Apr 2010 at 10:30 am 3.Richard said …
Everhart’s junk is really frightening. Awful stuff.
But while I doubt ANYONE would consider Barks’ Duck PAINTINGS “Art,” I would say that if anyone was going to rencder them this way, they’d be lucky to have the world be as complete. Most renderings of the Disney characters’ worlds these days is “wacked out” cartoony–especially that really ugly epic Mickey video game stuff–but Barks makes the characters and world become one. It’s different than the classic shorts, but it’s at least considered as a whole (unlike that terrible video game crap).
on 15 Apr 2010 at 11:38 am 4.Thad said …
I was at Geppi’s Museum last year for their exhibit of Barks’ paintings. Honestly, I couldn’t help but smile looking at all of them. There were at least one or two drawings there that were pretty embarrassing though. (The one I remember specifically was of Daisy Duck as a cheerleader.)
on 15 Apr 2010 at 2:24 pm 5.Sam said …
I’m not quite sure why the insult that these aren’t ‘art’, if what Carl Barks doing isn’t art while something Rembrandt is, then isn’t animation itself not a work of ‘art’ too since it’s all cartoons and modern stuff?
I think these are great, I actually liked the last one most compared to the others. The bedding for the triplets behind there is so crazy, nobody can actually sleep in that!
Also, at least it’s different than most other ‘art’ we see today. Most ‘art’ you see on blogs or sites like Deviantart barely have something that has a story going. And is mostly just characters standing or sitting around doing nothing. For Carl Barks, the first picture depicts family, and history of it with the dragon stuff and all.
The second and third tells an adventure, treasure hunting and what not. I personally preferred the cel colored comics version of Donald Duck than a detailed rendered, almost 3D-like drawings of them, but I can see where Carl Barks is a guy who likes to paint and tried to apply it to something else he likes to do too, cartoons. So to me it’s just a matter of a guy having fun with what he enjoys doing.
on 15 Apr 2010 at 2:56 pm 6.Vladimir Kreizenfaust said …
The amazing Nat Tate hoax convinced me long ago that discussing what makes “art” has no point whatsoever. Different individuals with different preferences will always try to validate their tastes by slapping the “art” label on their favorite products.
That said, I never cared much about Carl Bark’s work, comics and paintings alike. Don Rosa, however…
on 16 Apr 2010 at 10:34 am 7.Jeff said …
I agree with Sam.
on 16 Apr 2010 at 2:08 pm 8.Bill said …
I agree with Sam and Jeff.
on 16 Apr 2010 at 2:29 pm 9.Stephen Worth said …
I usually try to take each piece on it’s own merits. These paintings would be nice puzzles in 80s style. The thing about Barks that I really admire though is his comic book covers. They were generally excellent examples of directness and simplicity with great staging and no unnecessary detail. If you have access to some of those, please post them. The modern Disney comic artists can’t touch Barks when it comes to great covers.
Bad taste is a transitory thing. A few years ago, you would be boiled in oil for expressing an appreciation for Margaret Keane’s paintings, yet now Mark Ryden makes a fortune remaining them for the hipster aesthetic. Go figure.
on 16 Apr 2010 at 2:32 pm 10.Stephen Worth said …
Reimagining, not remaining. My new iPad has a habit of replacing words that it doesn’t need to replace. (its not it’s too)
on 18 Apr 2010 at 1:01 am 11.GeoX said …
Barks was a talented artist. I will be the first to admit, however, that painting was not his forte.
on 18 Apr 2010 at 11:12 am 12.Bill said …
Hey guys, please cut the “GOOD” Duck Artist some slack. After grinding out super quality comic book art (and writing) for all those years,for which in my opinion he was very underpaid, he tried to keep the wolf from the door when he retired by continuing to work. He welcomed the “paintings”, which to him were a piece of “Gladstone” luck. He gave the “oils” everything he had, he took no short cuts, just like the way he did his comics. So, “art”? “Shmart”? Think of the paintings as his 401K for all of the enjoyment he gave to us when we were growing up.
on 18 Apr 2010 at 12:06 pm 13.Michael Sporn said …
Carl Barks was a brilliant artist, and all you need to realize that is to read ANY of his comic book stories. The drawing was always brilliant in that it took Donald to a new level and the stories, themselves, were immediate and engrossing. That was Carl Barks’ art – the storywriting and the drawing at the demand of the magnificent writing.
I don’t get turned on by the oil paintings, but I am always taken away by any story in those magical comic books or by any single drawing – never mind the gang of them to tell the story – Mr. Barks did.
on 03 Jul 2017 at 6:39 am 14.judi online euro 2016 said …
It is vital to dedicate time for the soccer training program.
Without Beckham it was always going to be an uphill task for the
Britons and with the sent off to Rooney, England hopes of winning the World Cup were also
gone. Soccer players need to have enough stamina to sustain on the field for 90 minutes or even more with speed and short bursts of power.