Arlen, thanks for enthusiastically introducing me to Steranko. I'm a fan of comics, modern design, and surrealism, but I've been limited in scope. It all coalesces with Steranko! Looking forward to delving into Nick Fury and his Cap run especially, as well as your other lectures.
Thanx, Jeremy, for those great kudos! Make sure you check out my Neal Adams memorial webinars, especially "The Marvel Works," where I delve into the Steranko-Adams connection! arlenschumer.com/neal-adams-memorial-free-webinar-5-4/
Love your lectures. Steranko is great. His work was like a mash up of Eisner and Kirby. I featured him on my channel about a year ago. That opening sequence of Scorpio silent scene reminds me of From Russia With Love opening sequence.
I watched your Steranko lecture uninterrupted last night. So enjoyable for so many reasons. My favorite parts are when you overlay his influences and point out his pacing choices. Steranko is the only art hero I have ever met (once at a local convention) and your lecture allows me to more fully SEE his work and genius so that I can appreciate him more deeply. In short, you killed it!
I really enjoyed your in-depth examination of Steranko’s work, but I was surprised you never mentioned any of his other cover work at Marvel. His Doc Savage and Fantastic Four covers are great, as is his work on the horror and western titles.
The Spirit story Steranko reprinted in his History of Comics was actually drawn by Jerry Grandenetti. Apparently Steranko was pissed that he hadn't know how much of Eisner's work was ghosted; during a Q&A session at a UK convention in the late 70s (I was there, but my memory for dates is shot) he was asked about Eisner and reponded with a surly "What did he ever draw?"
@user-zo7mr3op8i, only Steranko can answer your question about his (over-)use of skulls, but I'd wager it's just always been a classic icon of symbolism going back to the very beginnings of art itself--not to mention in the pulps , comic strips and comic books Streranko devoured as a youth.
By the way, Jim has stated that NIck Fury's apartment was actually a depiction of his his own digs in New York City. And for the longest time, for years and years, I thought that Joe Sinnott was inking that SHIELD stuff, only to find (and realize) that it was Steranko himself (of course). The point is he masterfully mimicked the Kirby / Sinnott look (F.F. comics) perfectly.
I didn't know Steranko had an apt. in NYC; I thought he ALWAYS lived in Reading, even during the late-'60s at Marvel? And Sinnott DID ink some of the later SHIELD stories in Strange Tales, as well as issue #1 of its own title.
@@arlen6658 I heard him say it on a panel (TH-cam). Maybe I read it, but it did come directly from him. I also see Sinnott did ink the Captain America stuff, so I was mixing memories. Hard to catch you or correct you on anything!
@@arlen6658 I found the lettering and the switches between styles to be the most interesting aspects of his work. Not as much the difference in his work doing Nick Fury to the romance comic, but the kind of decision-making at play that lead to the choice of going multimedia, psychadelic, or so on. Lettering has been a perpetual interest of mine as a general thing so Steranko's usage of it in the logos and setting the mood are interesting as well.
@@Relevant_Irrelevance Did you see the 2 videos posted on my TH-cam channel about the great God of DC lettering, Ira Schnapp? Check out this 3-minute video of the opening of my Schnapp exhibit at NYC's Type Directors Club: th-cam.com/video/VXDqO4Xwjlc/w-d-xo.html
The SHIELD No. 7 cover is based on or inspired by Salvador Dali's "Melting Clocks" painting. One of his most famous museum pieces. Images available on the 'net.
@@arlen6658 I may have missed it. I thought I could add something to the party. I really enjoy the work you do. You seem to provide answers to lots of questions sleeping in my mind. Can't say enough re appreication.
What's with the skulls? OK skulls appear often as part of the Hydra symbol - But look at all the other skulls. Skulls as eyeballs on that X-Men 49 for instance. There are many others.
Don't agree with you on Stan Lee. During one his early jobs at Marvel, Jim Shooter found reams of Kirby pencils rejected by Stan the Man. They were being used for inking samples. But they also clearly indicate that Stan knew the story he wanted to tell, and sent Kirby (literally) back to the drawing board when he didn't get it. This was Shooter's assessment as well.
Uh, how do you know those weren't Lee's changing KIRBY'S story for no good reason, other than to justify his (Lee's) taking both writer's credit AND writer's PAY? As usual with comic book fanboys still worshipping at Unca Stan's feet, you only take LEE'S word on the "history." There's just as many examples of Lee changing Kirby's stories, all right--FOR THE WORSE.
Uh, @RobotPorter, how do you know those weren't Lee's changing KIRBY'S story for no good reason, other than to justify his (Lee's) taking both writer's credit AND writer's PAY? As usual with comic book fanboys still worshipping at Unca Stan's feet, you only take LEE'S word on the "history." There's just as many examples of Lee changing Kirby's stories, all right--FOR THE WORSE.
@@arlen6658 Not sure there's much I can add to your presentation, which I enjoyed quite a bit and have forwarded to family members. The only thing I might add, in amplification of what you've said, is that Steranko seems to me to have created single-handedly---yes, single-handedly---the modern-style comic book. Since I don't have anything close to your knowledge of the subject and because, furthermore, his period at Marvel was pretty much the final period in which I personally followed comic books, I can't be entirely sure of that, but that's how it has seemed to me for, say, the last half century (i.e., since I began to see what seemed to me his influence in the magazine Heavy Metal). Not until I viewed this your webinar was I aware how much Steranko owed to Will Eisner; but I'm pretty sure you yourself say here that Steranko lifted what Eisner had done to a higher level---yet the prevailing level, in my view. If asked to define rock-and-roll, I'd probably say, "A form of music played by Little Richard." Yes, in saying that, I'd probably invite ridicule, but that's pretty much how it seems to me: Everyone else is just imitating. In the case of Steranko and his effect on comic books, such a stark attribution of influence is even more justified, I think. Rock-and-roll had, at least, the rock development, which was triggered by the Beatles (even if they themselves never quite played rock). There's no Beatle equivalent to Steranko's Little Richard: Steranko created the form---and it's been imitation ever since. Having been born in December 1953, I am, I think, some years older than you, but Steranko's work, when it appeared, seems to have struck you virtually the same way it struck me. I was startled, as I watched your webinar, to recognize virtually every Steranko image you treated in it. I remember, too, having no idea---as you say you yourself had no idea---who was the masked figure, Eisner's The Spirit, in that hero group Steranko drew. The one image I did miss, in your presentation, was a multi-page spread in which a tech-garbed figure---Nick Fury, I guess---was in the foreground as he and other S.H.I.E.L.D. agents were dropping from their sky-floating aircraft-carrier-type-thing. Other than that, everything I remember of Steranko was covered by you---and that's quite a bit. At storyboardart.org/comics-vs-cinematic-storytelling/#:~:text=Films%20are%20meant%20to%20be,too%20much%20while%20consuming%20it is a 2018 webpage I present in support of my contention that everything modern owes to Steranko. There's nothing on the comic pages there that Steranko didn't do in his Marvel period. The person who created that webpage doesn't make that point---doesn't even mention Steranko---but that, I'll guess, is because he's too young to be aware that Jim Steranko created everything he loves.
Love your webinars and love Steranko. Thanks for this.
Anything specific stand out for discussion?
Subscribed!!! Love these talks!!!
Arlen, thanks for enthusiastically introducing me to Steranko. I'm a fan of comics, modern design, and surrealism, but I've been limited in scope. It all coalesces with Steranko! Looking forward to delving into Nick Fury and his Cap run especially, as well as your other lectures.
Thanx, Jeremy, for those great kudos! Make sure you check out my Neal Adams memorial webinars, especially "The Marvel Works," where I delve into the Steranko-Adams connection! arlenschumer.com/neal-adams-memorial-free-webinar-5-4/
Love your lectures. Steranko is great. His work was like a mash up of Eisner and Kirby. I featured him on my channel about a year ago. That opening sequence of Scorpio silent scene reminds me of From Russia With Love opening sequence.
Awesomeness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watched your Steranko lecture uninterrupted last night. So enjoyable for so many reasons. My favorite parts are when you overlay his influences and point out his pacing choices. Steranko is the only art hero I have ever met (once at a local convention) and your lecture allows me to more fully SEE his work and genius so that I can appreciate him more deeply. In short, you killed it!
Thanx, Michael, for those awesome kudos!!
fantastic presentation!!
I really enjoyed your in-depth examination of Steranko’s work, but I was surprised you never mentioned any of his other cover work at Marvel. His Doc Savage and Fantastic Four covers are great, as is his work on the horror and western titles.
For time constraints, I limited this overview to just his Silver Age work (1966-70).
I always thought Steranko was Kirby but all jazzed up. Like Coltrane playing "My Favorite Things". Love your work. I have the book.
I did describe Steranko as "Kirby on steroids"--or "Kirby on Acid"! :)
The Spirit story Steranko reprinted in his History of Comics was actually drawn by Jerry Grandenetti. Apparently Steranko was pissed that he hadn't know how much of Eisner's work was ghosted; during a Q&A session at a UK convention in the late 70s (I was there, but my memory for dates is shot) he was asked about Eisner and reponded with a surly "What did he ever draw?"
@user-zo7mr3op8i, only Steranko can answer your question about his (over-)use of skulls, but I'd wager it's just always been a classic icon of symbolism going back to the very beginnings of art itself--not to mention in the pulps , comic strips and comic books Streranko devoured as a youth.
Great work. Wish I could customize figures.
By the way, Jim has stated that NIck Fury's apartment was actually a depiction of his his own digs in New York City. And for the longest time, for years and years, I thought that Joe Sinnott was inking that SHIELD stuff, only to find (and realize) that it was Steranko himself (of course). The point is he masterfully mimicked the Kirby / Sinnott look (F.F. comics) perfectly.
I didn't know Steranko had an apt. in NYC; I thought he ALWAYS lived in Reading, even during the late-'60s at Marvel? And Sinnott DID ink some of the later SHIELD stories in Strange Tales, as well as issue #1 of its own title.
@@arlen6658 I heard him say it on a panel (TH-cam). Maybe I read it, but it did come directly from him. I also see Sinnott did ink the Captain America stuff, so I was mixing memories. Hard to catch you or correct you on anything!
@@cordellsenior9935 Hey, I'm human too, and have made PLENTY of "mistakes"--in both art & life!! :)
History of comics volumes should be something made every decade
Great lecture, Mr. Schumer.
"Mr. Schumer"!??!? Call me ARLEN!!! :)
Anything specific stand out for discussion?
@@arlen6658 I found the lettering and the switches between styles to be the most interesting aspects of his work. Not as much the difference in his work doing Nick Fury to the romance comic, but the kind of decision-making at play that lead to the choice of going multimedia, psychadelic, or so on. Lettering has been a perpetual interest of mine as a general thing so Steranko's usage of it in the logos and setting the mood are interesting as well.
@@Relevant_Irrelevance Did you see the 2 videos posted on my TH-cam channel about the great God of DC lettering, Ira Schnapp? Check out this 3-minute video of the opening of my Schnapp exhibit at NYC's Type Directors Club: th-cam.com/video/VXDqO4Xwjlc/w-d-xo.html
@@arlen6658 No, I haven't. Thank you!
The SHIELD No. 7 cover is based on or inspired by Salvador Dali's "Melting Clocks" painting. One of his most famous museum pieces. Images available on the 'net.
Uh, that cover has MORE than ONE source; I think I showed that during my webinar, no?
@@arlen6658 I may have missed it. I thought I could add something to the party. I really enjoy the work you do. You seem to provide answers to lots of questions sleeping in my mind. Can't say enough re appreication.
@@cordellsenior9935 Thanx, Cordell! FYI: arlenschumer.com/vivian-maier-webinar-via-ny-adventure-club-11-25/
Melting Clocks = 'The persistence of Memory' I believe.
46:05 what do you think Jim used as reference for these poses????
hmmm, don't know!
What's with the skulls?
OK skulls appear often as part of the Hydra symbol - But look at all the other skulls.
Skulls as eyeballs on that X-Men 49 for instance. There are many others.
I find it humerus.
Don't agree with you on Stan Lee. During one his early jobs at Marvel, Jim Shooter found reams of Kirby pencils rejected by Stan the Man. They were being used for inking samples. But they also clearly indicate that Stan knew the story he wanted to tell, and sent Kirby (literally) back to the drawing board when he didn't get it. This was Shooter's assessment as well.
Uh, how do you know those weren't Lee's changing KIRBY'S story for no good reason, other than to justify his (Lee's) taking both writer's credit AND writer's PAY? As usual with comic book fanboys still worshipping at Unca Stan's feet, you only take LEE'S word on the "history." There's just as many examples of Lee changing Kirby's stories, all right--FOR THE WORSE.
@@arlen6658 Stan Lee was an egocentric maniac. Period!
Uh, @RobotPorter, how do you know those weren't Lee's changing KIRBY'S story for no good reason, other than to justify his (Lee's) taking both writer's credit AND writer's PAY? As usual with comic book fanboys still worshipping at Unca Stan's feet, you only take LEE'S word on the "history." There's just as many examples of Lee changing Kirby's stories, all right--FOR THE WORSE.
Cinema is older than the comic-book.
Uh, no it's not. Comics go back to the cave paintings!
@@arlen6658 I'd say cinema goes back to the same source.
@@johnbonaccorsi5378 how 'bout actually discussing STERANKO'S work--or my webinar about it?
@@arlen6658 Not sure there's much I can add to your presentation, which I enjoyed quite a bit and have forwarded to family members. The only thing I might add, in amplification of what you've said, is that Steranko seems to me to have created single-handedly---yes, single-handedly---the modern-style comic book. Since I don't have anything close to your knowledge of the subject and because, furthermore, his period at Marvel was pretty much the final period in which I personally followed comic books, I can't be entirely sure of that, but that's how it has seemed to me for, say, the last half century (i.e., since I began to see what seemed to me his influence in the magazine Heavy Metal). Not until I viewed this your webinar was I aware how much Steranko owed to Will Eisner; but I'm pretty sure you yourself say here that Steranko lifted what Eisner had done to a higher level---yet the prevailing level, in my view.
If asked to define rock-and-roll, I'd probably say, "A form of music played by Little Richard." Yes, in saying that, I'd probably invite ridicule, but that's pretty much how it seems to me: Everyone else is just imitating. In the case of Steranko and his effect on comic books, such a stark attribution of influence is even more justified, I think. Rock-and-roll had, at least, the rock development, which was triggered by the Beatles (even if they themselves never quite played rock). There's no Beatle equivalent to Steranko's Little Richard: Steranko created the form---and it's been imitation ever since.
Having been born in December 1953, I am, I think, some years older than you, but Steranko's work, when it appeared, seems to have struck you virtually the same way it struck me. I was startled, as I watched your webinar, to recognize virtually every Steranko image you treated in it. I remember, too, having no idea---as you say you yourself had no idea---who was the masked figure, Eisner's The Spirit, in that hero group Steranko drew.
The one image I did miss, in your presentation, was a multi-page spread in which a tech-garbed figure---Nick Fury, I guess---was in the foreground as he and other S.H.I.E.L.D. agents were dropping from their sky-floating aircraft-carrier-type-thing. Other than that, everything I remember of Steranko was covered by you---and that's quite a bit.
At storyboardart.org/comics-vs-cinematic-storytelling/#:~:text=Films%20are%20meant%20to%20be,too%20much%20while%20consuming%20it is a 2018 webpage I present in support of my contention that everything modern owes to Steranko. There's nothing on the comic pages there that Steranko didn't do in his Marvel period. The person who created that webpage doesn't make that point---doesn't even mention Steranko---but that, I'll guess, is because he's too young to be aware that Jim Steranko created everything he loves.
Steranko would one of my top fives if he could just get his eyes right. Too low, too high, too big, too small, not symmetrical.
Picayune much? Jeez.