Keskustelujen arkisto

Wow!
Thanks Ari, that was interesting reading.

Now I would hope that these persons who are so interested in ducks and
the
related that they make pro gradus, would maybe show up or already be
here.

I really would like to be bale to *read* many of those things.

Interjektions in Aku Ankka and Micky Muas refers to the soundwords we
use.
Before Micky Maus started coming out in Germany 1951 it's said they had
no soundwords.
The famous german translator of MM, Dr. Erika Fuchs had to introduce
this.
Translators become quite famous over here you know. accoriding to Duck
comics I guess there
weren't many in the US? Maybe to Brazilian and ducth comics, unless
those are wiritten in english too?

A. C. Sivebaek
acsive at mail.mira.dk

Mr Bowcock:
<Am I the only one who found Mr. Garvin's remarks about Don Rosa to be
especially ironic considering how he calls Don arrogant, and then
proceeds to tell us how he suggested the idea of a Barks painting to him
on one of his "many visits" to his home.
Geez.........how much more arrogant can you get? Like Mr. Garvin's
opinions are more valid than the rest of ours because he met Carl Barks?
Your opinion is just that. Your opinion. So somebody doesn't like
Barks' paintings. Get over it. >

You don't like Barks paintings? Fine. Don Rosa doesn't like Barks paintings? Fine. I didn't see you coming onto a public forum
telling the world what Barks should or should not be remembered for. Don Rosa did. You don't make your living in the shadow of Carl
Barks. Don Rosa does. Does he have a right to his opinion? Certainly. Is expressing a negative opinion about the work of a man he
owes so much to arrogant? I stand by that.

And I brought up my visits with Barks not because I was using them as some kind of authority, but to demonstrate that there are those
who came to Barks through his paintings, not his comics. I went to his home to discuss painting with he and his wife Gare', not comic
stories. I discovered Barks through the paintings in the 77 price guide. I decided to become an artist that year, when I was 17,
because of those Barks paintings. I spent five years doing copies of Barks paintings, just for the joy of it. When Barks moved to
Southern Oregon in the early 80s (my home at the time) he invited me to come show them to him. Here I was this geeky 20 year old kid
with a bunch of ripoffs of Barks paintings, and they were thrilled, I think in retrospect, that someone took an interest in the work
itself, and not in "Carls name attatched to some pretty pictures of Disney Ducks." Those early paintings of mine were terrible, all
washed out with no depth.

So he took me under his wing. They spent hours with me, talking about technique, and tools, and paints. I still have a sheet of
paper, in Carls hand, showing me his recipe for mixing oil and turps and varnish, to get a slick oil suitable for the smooth masonite
surface. Gare' showed me how to prepare, gesso, and sand the masonite surface (Carl learned most of the nuts and bolts of painting
from his wife Gare', who was a professional landscape artist.). Carl gave me his palette schemes for making gold, and feathers, and
duck bills.

But mostly what Barks showed me was his incredible imagination and sense of humor. Yes, I have several Barks lithographs hanging in my
home. Not ONE of them is of Disney Ducks. My two favorites are Xerxes and Harem, and Caliph of Bagdad. I still smile everytime I look
at these collections of exotic, half naked anthropomorphic duckbilled harem girls. The sheer audacity of the image! Here's a famous
Disney artist painting nude disneyesque ducklings. And the playfullness of it. Xerxes, surrounded by beautiful women, ignores them
and plays cats cradle with a handful of string. And the coloring! Subtle shades of the same primary colors used in the comic books,
but such mastery of them. And the composition and drawing. Each frame filled to the brim with interesting detail, but not
overpowering the central figure. And each painting getting its humor from a different source: Xerxes essentially a "gag" in which the
humor derives from a juxtaposition of images (Xerxes, surrounded by naked girls, ignores them to play with his string); where as Caliph
is essentially a "story panel" in which the magic carpet riding Caliph hovers above the thumbs-out hitchhiking naked girls, inviting us
to wonder where he is going, or where he is returning from, and which of the girls is he taking with him. And what kind of a world
view is it, anyway, that can have two closely related paintings take such diametrically opposed viewpoints of masculine power?

These are masterworks of art, not fanboy pictures. I really believe that Barks was onto something here, a new way of painting, a new
way of creating images that mesh comic book sillyness with the rendered reality that a well painted oil can achieve. It could be, as
Mr. Ault points out, that Barks did it instinctively, but the achievement is there nonetheless. I have spent the last 25 years of my
life studying and learning from the paintings of Carl Barks. Barks paintings are how I got my career as art director in the computer
game business (currently working on SyphonFilter 3, for the playstation.) Barks paintings have driven me creatively for 25 years. (see
www.enchantedimages.com to see my latest work.)

So no Mr. Bowcock, I won't "get over it." If someone wants to discuss the merits of Barks paintings, after having seen them, fine.
But don't tell me we should pretend that this part of Barks's career should be forgotten because it is not as important as his comic
book work. And don't, as Mr. Rosa does, dismiss an impressive and varied and complex body of work as "collectibles endeavors," as if
they were cheap hack work that should sit alongside the made-in-hong-kong plastic Daisy Duck drinking cups in a cheap Disneyland
souvenir shop.

>And Daniel.........we all know very well how you don't like Don. Your
comment was really uncalled for. <

Again I disagree, Mr. Bowcock. Daniel's comment was entirely called for. He has every right to point out Mr. Rosa's penchant for
calling into question the "emotional stability" of anyone who disagrees with him. I personally feel sorry for not having publically
defended Daniel from Mr. Rosa's attacks in the past.

And I'm still looking for that Comic's Journal with the Barrier article. When I find it, look for a letter from me to Blood and
Thunder, the Journal's letter section.

Oil paintings etc. by Barks are interesting but mostly in the sense that
*Barks* did them IMO. I find it difficult to imagine how Don or anyone
else for that matter would be able to use them or get inspired
by them (directly) in his or her comics. They are basically camera like
snapshots from various events in the past. They are *great* snapshots
agreed, but they don't have much new story to tell, do they.

In popular terms we might compare them to a remixed "Greatest Hits"
album from an old band we all used to love. Think of the remaining three
members of The Beatles who during the last twenty years have released
such records on a regular basis (digitally mastered, a few takes with
previously unheard grunting from various rehearsal sessions etc.) I
doubt such releases would inspire any serious band into making music.
This is a harsh and inexact comparison, I know, but it might show why
Barks' oil paintings are more or less useless in a comics context
(standalone cover creations excepted of course).

Perhaps when Don retires from the comics business he might get into
oils himself--who can tell?! :-)

Hence, I do not agree with John's appreciations on Barks' oils.

Now, (and this is something utterly different), I *do* agree with
John's comments on some people's way of expressing their views:

The very same second I received Don's "emotional problems" mail, I knew
I had read this somewhere before, but Daniel was faster than me, and it
was none of my business anyway--yet, please, Don! There is no reason to
attack back with double strength. Even *if* John and Daniel have
"emotional problems" (which of course is out of the question), why on
Earth bring this into the debate. To me this seems like the last thing
one would ever dare to do. You might have meant this as a pure
rethorical phrase, but still it's a bit "low" IMO.

Secondly, I really dislike the way that Don's "Little Helpers" always
pop up out of nowhere when someone tickles the sacred shell. Example:

> RODNEY said:
>
> And Daniel.........we all know very well how you don't like Don. Your
>
> comment was really uncalled for.
>
> ......
>
>
> Amen!

Hey, *that* really wasn't called for--and that goes both for the "Amen"
and the sentence above.

I am a bit disappointed about the reaction from Don about me actually
liking his newest story. Don, by now I know that I have missed myriads
of golden Barks references in that story, but why not just smeer out
that fact instead of letting me stand out as an ignorant. Hey, I loved
that story and only found a few Barks related facts there. Why not just
enjoy that you actually managed to please one of your critics, one who
is not even a born Barksian.

Don, you are (whether you like it or not) unable to convience everyone
of us with your believes just like that. At some point you should
stop, take a pause (order a pizza, as we say in my programmer's world
:-) and think! Most of the times you invite for those ranting debates
yourself.

Søren

Rob:

As I understand it, Disney Italia is a division of Disney, not a licensee
(or franchisee). Back in the late 1980s-early 1990s Disney served Mondadori,
the longtime Italian Disney comics licensee, with their walking papers (at
about the same time, and it would seem with about the same level of thought
and sensitivity, as they did Gladstone), and established Disney Italia in
the same expansive spirit as they'd established Disney Comics, along with
reorganized practically their entire publishing sector, in the U.S. Disney
Italia, however, inherited a line that was (seen from here, certainly) very
well established in both scope, style, and success, and there seems to have
been little Disney did re corporate oversight except say "Carry on!".
Anyway, whatever there is to say about Italian artists going "off model"
these days, it would appear to be with the tacit blessing of Disney that
they do so.

Gary wrote:

> Barks painted. [...]
> the success of these led to the establishment of
> Gladstone Comics in the wake of Western Publishing retiring
> from the comics biz.

Which, in turn, led to Don Rosa making Disney comic stories! Funny, isn't
it?
8-)

--Harry.

Fran?ois quoted John Glade:

> I realize that my experiences with mailing lists are probably
> not typical or
> not typical of all mailing lists, but they have helped
> convince me that I
> would just as soon stick with clubs.

I don't think the *content* of one mailing list should be regarded
representative for all mailing lists.
But I now better understand the technical differences. In my opinion, the
advantages and disadvantages are:

Mailing list (DCML):
- you don't have to visit an URL to get updated;
- the DCML list is strictly non-profit (did anyone ever receive spam
messages from Sweden?);
- the DCML is text-only.

Web-based forum:
- you can get attachments, and have an own space for interesting stuff like
photographs and scans;
- you have to subscribe to a commercial party, hence set your e-mail address
open for spam;
- you can write fancy HTML-based postings.

Okay, I can imagine that some people prefer either of them.
I do hope that important messages that pop up elsewhere are reported on DCML
too. I hardly have time to read my current mailing lists, let alone
subscribe to new ones...

--Harry.

Hi!

I found recently a story in which both characters star:
"On the Ball"
("Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse" # 7, no story code)
Story & script by Dave Rawson
Art by Daniel Branca

There's a reference to "the good old days" and earlier adventures--
in Tierra fuego, Bora Bora, ...-- to give them a commin background.

Olivier