ID SF Illustrator?

[klothos]

Even some VERY BIG NAMES in the art world reek of rank amateurism in my book.

Pffft...there's big names in the art world that I question if certain pieces even qualify as "art"

*cough* Duchamp *cough*

[rcarlberg]

*cough*Pollock*cough*

[proggosaurus]

I can't tell much for sure but it could possibly be the artists 3 initials. you could get in contact with an art appraiser, maybe someone from PBS Antique Roadshow. they have a good list of art appraisers on their website.

Attachment 2962

[ronmac]

The black and white ones show much better composition, skill and technique. The color one, especially, looks amateurish and self-taught with poor use of color and light. It has terrible composition, unlike the B&W ones, which guide the eye to the subject.

I'm not convinced it's the same artist, unless they are years apart.

[JKL2000]

The black and white ones show much better composition, skill and technique. The color one, especially, looks amateurish and self-taught with poor use of color and light. It has terrible composition, unlike the B&W ones, which guide the eye to the subject.

I'm not convinced it's the same artist, unless they are years apart.

Looks like the same signature though.

As far as composition for the color one, if an artist is doing a piece for a book cover, they often won't worry about composition that much if they know the publisher can take just a portion for the cover, and perhaps a wrap-around cover. Composition becomes less important. Again you have to look at other covers from the era, but of course we can't be sure of the era for these pieces.

[klothos]

The black and white ones show much better composition, skill and technique. The color one, especially, looks amateurish and self-taught with poor use of color and light. It has terrible composition, unlike the B&W ones, which guide the eye to the subject.

Is it possible that you are over-analyzing this? (this is not a smart-ass question)

The top one looks like contracted work for a book cover or some type of media illustration. Paint it up, turn in the work, get paid...the second two look like studies for an eventual other piece or just work from a different time-period than the top one.

All three don't give me the impression that the artist ever intended on getting his/her own gallery at the MMA with these

[Lopez]

The first one looks like something done by the late Kelly Freas (his most famous is probably the Weird Tales cover that was used by Queen for News of the World); however, I doubt that as his signature is prominent, very distinctive, and easy to read.

[Man In The Mountain]

The top one looks like contracted work for a book cover or some type of media illustration. Paint it up, turn in the work, get paid...the second two look like studies for an eventual other piece.

All three don't give me the impression that the artist ever intended on getting his/her own gallery at the MMA with these

That is the exact impression I get. I've worked in publishing for over 20 years, and have done, or been involved with, contracting work similar to these. It's almost funny in a way, that the guy would sell this stuff at an art show. But, it's cool by me.

The color one is a 2 page illustration, fold it in half to the left of those carrots, and the half with the spacemen is really cool, it comes into balance. The part with the 3 eyed toad is cheesy.

[ronmac]

Is it possible that you are over-analyzing this? (this is not a smart-ass question)

Nope, I'm just looking at it with a trained eye. Bad composition is bad composition. Frankly, I think it's far too amateurish to be a book cover. At least, not for any reasonably large publisher.

The color one is a 2 page illustration, fold it in half to the left of those carrots, and the half with the spacemen is really cool, it comes into balance. The part with the 3 eyed toad is cheesy.

It could be a two-page rendering, but I don't buy it being a book cover. If you cut it in half, the right side is actually worse. No artist with any sense of composition would have the subject looking outward to left edge like that. The main subject should/would be looking into the composition. It could be a two-page illustration, but I don't see it as a front and back cover. Plus there's no accommodation for cover graphics, which would be likely there if it were a cover. (Although, there are ways around that.)


If you look at the people in the B&W ones, the drawing skill is far better than the color one. Yes, the signatures are close, so they could be years apart.

[Man In The Mountain]

I don't buy it being a book cover. If you cut it in half, the right side is actually worse. No artist with any sense of composition would have the subject looking outward to left edge like that. The main subject should/would be looking into the composition. It could be a two-page illustration, but I don't see it as a front and back cover.

Yes, I agree. Not a cover, it's an inside book illustration. The toad then would not be looking off the page, but into the fold. Which could have been done better, but it's plausible.

[klothos]

Nope, I'm just looking at it with a trained eye. Bad composition is bad composition. Frankly, I think it's far too amateurish to be a book cover.

Have you ever read the composition in the books that illustrations like this graced? If the shoe fits........

[JKL2000]

It's almost funny in a way, that the guy would sell this stuff at an art show. But, it's cool by me.

According to the webpage, they were sold by a Comic art seller at a convention.

[Rune Blackwings]

Yes, I agree. Not a cover, it's an inside book illustration. The toad then would not be looking off the page, but into the fold. Which could have been done better, but it's plausible.

It looks very familiar and I think that some of the really obscure sci-fi books of the 60's and 70's had this kind of work.