Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: RunnerNot totally off topic :
Sometimes I wonder if Garé inked a few ducks now and then and that's what makes them look a bit different. Who knows. (She's listed in inducks as the inker of the cover to WDC 405. A cover that looks a lot like the cover to Bugs Bunny #168 BTW. ) Some late US covers seems to be inked with a brush and that would explain some differences in style. Or maybe they were partly re-inked. Just look at the face of the middle nephew on the cover of US 60...

The two sketches Cacou links to are from the "Treasury" period and done ca 1996, if memory serves me right.
That explains the shaky lines. (Not from the 70's, despite what the auction desc says.)

The items Andrea links to are really early and came from the Barks estate. Barks did plenty of cartoons with woodpeckers etc. that probably didn't go further than the pencil stage.

I think I remember reading in The Carl Barks Library, that those strange-looking Donald heads were drawn by Western Publishing's editorial artists, because Barks had forgotten Western's rule that Donald's head needed to be disproportionally larger than his body and, thus his Nephews' heads, because he was the book's main character. Western chose NOT to send the drawings back to Barks, as they were otherwise perfect and ready to print. They assumed that the redrawn heads were close enough in style that the kids wouldn't notice. After all, to that point, no readers had written to Western, stating that "the good artist" was so much better than the rest. Thanks to Barks' own modesty about his drawing skills, and his description to the editors of the poorly-written, thinly-plotted WDC stories written by other authors, Barks' editors thought the big clamor from fans to return Barks to the lead-story 10-pagers at the end of 1950, was due mainly (if not totally) to Barks' superior story-writing.
Garé never inked The Ducks for a finished comic book story. Carl told me, himself, that he tested her on them, and she did brilliantly on backgrounds and realistic animals, but couldn't master inking the Ducks and other cartoon characters. I believe that was confirmed in official interviews.
WDC 174 and a few other Barks' Donald's heads were redrawn for that reason between 1953-56. Starting in 1957 or so, that rule was dropped. So, only one Barks Donald's head was re-drawn after that (as I recollect). That was the very late Gold Key cover with Donald sea-sick lying on a lounge chair on a cruise ship. We were told, in a Carl Barks Library article, that that was also re-drawn by Western editors.

Quote from user: Joakim GunnarssonQuote from user: RunnerNot totally off topic :
Sometimes I wonder if Garé inked a few ducks now and then and that's what makes them look a bit different. Who knows. (She's listed in inducks as the inker of the cover to WDC 405. A cover that looks a lot like the cover to Bugs Bunny #168 BTW. ) Some late US covers seems to be inked with a brush and that would explain some differences in style. Or maybe they were partly re-inked. Just look at the face of the middle nephew on the cover of US 60...
Garé could well have inked the cover of WDC 405. That was done in 1974, LONG after Carl told me that Garé hadn't inked the characters (which he told me in 1966 or 1969. Barks' hand was already getting a bit shaky by then. And Western's art standards seemed to have been declining as they progressed in the Gold Key period. Barks' stiffer and shakier pencils, inked over by Garé, were still better looking than all the other covers of the period.

The Nephews on the cover of US 60 look a LOT like they may have been re-inked by Strobl's later inker, or, possibly Western's office art editor.

It looks as if Barks did everything on this one (WDC 351). What makes you think he had help with this one? To me, all 4 Ducks look like Barks' later '60s style.

Quote from user: RunnerQuote from user: Robb_KIt looks as if Barks did everything on this one (WDC 351). What makes you think he had help with this one? To me, all 4 Ducks look like Barks' later '60s style.
No I think the "upper" nephews face including the eyes are very untypical for a Barks nephew even in that period late 1960's. He looks a bit too "infantil" two me in his expression.

On this cover http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/WDC+342 I find only "natural" Barks ducks in accordance with other good covers and his latest comic book work a littte bit earlier.

Here http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/WDC+334 is another example of 100 % Barks feeling of the ducks' appearance in my view.

To me the faces of the Ducks are the priority number one factor of the attraction of a comic panel or cover and I just love especially the 1948-1949 Barks Ducks, but it is the same kind of attraction to Barks other comic book work ducks and therefore I feel I am very sure of judging true Barks comic book work, even if his late 60's art may be a bit uneven.

But oviously he could draw consistently with former art in those examples WDC&S 334 and 342.
Then he should not have to draw such a, to me, different nephew on WDC&S 351 if it wasn't someone else "interfering".

Finally I must "confess" that I find the whole cover including the other Ducks also slightly "simplified" and not with the Barks "luster" he demonstrates on WDC&S 334 and 342, at least as far as the Duck faces are concerned.

----------------

All this may seem rather unimportant in some fans view, and I admit it is not of GREAT importance but nevertheless interesting in principle :-)
Had I only seen the inked cover of WDC 351, I might think that your theory had some merit, and an editor made some alterations to thupper nephew. But, the boy looks the same on the sketch. So, I find it difficult to believe that Garé helped Carl on that sketch. Certainly, she didn't draw the entire sketch or she'd have been given credit for that work.

Anyone buying?

Original artwork, esp something like an authentic Carl Barks sketch or painting, will come with a provenance. If the seller can not provide a verifiable provenance then the buyer simply should not purchase it.
For those unfamiliar with the term, here is a quick explanation:
"The provenance of a painting is a history of its ownership. The term ??provenance" is also used in reference to other works of art such as textiles, sculptures, and so forth. Provenance is of increasing importance in the art community because museums, galleries, and collectors wish to avoid handling looted art and wish to confirm that their art is genuine. Proper provenance research can take weeks, months, or even years and requires some very special skills.
Researching the provenance of a work of art fulfills several functions. One important function is confirming that the work of art is what it claims to be. When people look into the provenance of a painting, they want to confirm that the painting is created by the person associated with it. They can look for signs of forgery in the painting itself, and also in the painting's ownership history. Tipoffs can include records of ??restoration" which might have been used to conceal forging activities, or long periods in which the painting was undocumented, making it difficult to determine if the painting someone is looking at is actually the original painting."

Quote from user: ArildThe signature looks a little bit "constructed".
Grandma Duck
The drawing looks even more constructed - no similarity to Barks style.