Dan Nadel’s post “Dave Stevens and Nostalgia” is very interesting, although “Alas” readers hoping for a feminist critique of Stevens will be disappointed. (And really, what would there be to say that wasn’t incredibly obvious? There was nothing layered or subtle about Stevens’ objectification of women, so it just comes down to how bad you think objectification is.)
Stevens was a much-celebrated comic book artist best known for his retro-style drawings of pin-up women, and for creating “The Rocketeer.” I always assumed that Stevens never wanted to do anything but pretty-but-shallow retro drawings, but apparently he was unhappy with the limits of his work, but never found the drive/visions/opportunity to do more.1
There’s an interesting discussion of being someone drawing in a very retro (and time-intensive) pulp style decades after the time and market for it has evaporated:
Ironically, the guys that came after Wood and Kane and Toth, like Bernie Wrightson, Mike Kaluta, Barry Smith, and Jeff Jones, followed them right down the manhole, dabbling in independent publishing but basically choosing to be pulp artists at a time when the pulps no longer existed. They chose to be willfully anachronistic. That helped make their work popular to a generation of guys who’d been children (if that) when the ECs came out and were now 20-something fanboys eager for more of the same, but, with the exception of Smith, who really brought a new kind of ferocity to his mark-making, it also severely limited the work. There was nowhere for it to go except for further wallowing in nostalgia – it would never transcend its nostalgic origins. The idea was to just make the best version of Arthur Rackham or Joseph Clement Coll as possible. There’s nothing wrong with that, really—it’s just rather limited.
It’s not that nostalgia is necessarily limited; Seth’s work is full of nostalgia, but it’s also some of the most vibrant, fresh cartooning out there. But Seth’s vision, while nostalgic, isn’t limited to the desire to recreate great works he read as a kid.
Nadel says at one point that Stevens had “the all-important illusion of technical proficiency (here defined as a late 19th century notion that conveniently ignores 20th century art history).” That really intrigues me, and I hope he develops that thought more in a later post.
- Self-indulgent comment: As a cartoonist currently deep into doing a light-hearted fantasy adventure graphic novel, but who thinks he can do more someday, I find that kind of a depressing thought. [↩]
