Charles Dana Gibson Thread

File: DSC01888 (Medium).jpg (215KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1024x768px

>>2890398

File: DSC01881 (Medium).jpg (177KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 768x1024px

>>2890400

File: DSC01882 (Medium).jpg (182KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 768x1024px

>>2890401

File: DSC01831 (Medium).jpg (233KB, 1365x768px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1365x768px

>>2890402

File: DSC01903 (Medium).jpg (271KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 768x1024px

No one likes Gibson?

File: DSC01921 (Medium).jpg (267KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1024x768px

>>2891934
>original filesize too big
Well shite.

>>2891934
He's good and I like him, but he's a bit too slick for my tastes. Everything feels overly self conscious of having the perfect strokes, kind of like a pen and ink Leyendecker. I'd pick a guy like Coll over Gibson.

File: DSC01902 (Medium).jpg (290KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1024x768px

>>2891940
>Coll
No foolin', but I've never heard of him. Got an example?

I would prefer CDG if he had more rough sketches. I like the drawings because they SEEM like sketches, but they are so perfect that they're something else entirely. I always prefer sketches, though.

File: DSC01853 (Medium).jpg (185KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1024x768px

>>2891947
I really like the way he draws the Gibson girl, though. She looks so longsuffering.

File: 1446083648730.jpg (58KB, 627x478px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 627x478px

>all that hatching

>>2891947
>No foolin', but I've never heard of him.
You're in for a treat then. He was a contemporary of Gibson and another pen and ink master. Here's a nice post that shows some closeups of one of his drawings: http://illustrationart.blogspot.ca/2009/05/one-lovely-drawing-part-26.html

File: DSC01846 (Medium).jpg (196KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1024x768px

>>2891952
>http://illustrationart.blogspot.ca/2009/05/one-lovely-drawing-part-26.html
Sweet tapdancing Christ those are good!

I need to take better pictures, but scanning is definitely out of the question. This book is huge.

>>2891952
Shit, that's hella sick dude. Thanks for the drop.

>>2891934
>>2891940
And despite the consciousness of trying to be perfect, or because of it, his hatch strokes are quite bland and even amateurish in some areas. His outlines are often wonky as well. Not in all of them--the ones with just the heads are alright. There is little consistency with the strokes of the arm and the strokes of the face in the one with the girl sitting in profile, for example. The folds in the image with a cupid is particularly amateurish. I don't think I know any other professional artists other than those of today who had such inarticulate rendition of folds. This is why you don't focus on pretty girl same face.

Realist drawings of high society turn-of-the-century American women also has quite a small admirer base.

>>2892189
oh look at that, its the common /ic/ genius who knows everything and totally isnt affected by dunning-kruger whatsoever

File: DSC01852 (Medium).jpg (228KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1024x768px

>>2892189
Huh.

File: DSC01917 fixed levels (Medium).png (1MB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x768px

>>2892240
Gonna see if I can fix the levels in GIMP. But I've never used GIMP.

File: DSC01849 fixed levels.jpg (4MB, 2292x1719px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2292x1719px

>>2892248

File: DSC01905 fixed levels.jpg (3MB, 2656x3541px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2656x3541px

>>2892254

File: camba4.jpg (91KB, 590x800px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 590x800px

shame the new 20s style made her kinda ugly

File: 7826178_270340502_18032612[1].jpg (133KB, 460x600px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 460x600px

>>2892189
>it's a comic book nerd thinks "his hatch strokes are bland because I make comic books and use dip pens so I think I have an authority"
>>2891940
It's good that you like gibson, I don't like the leyendecker brothers at all.

>>2892325
Curious, can I ask why you dont like the leyendeckers? I only discovered them yesterday and I think I may be a little obsessed with their work.

>>2892325
I was comparing Gibson to Leyendecker in a negative way, like they both are too focused on the slick look which isn't to my taste. I like Gibson but I don't love him. I can see he is skilled and there are aspects of his work I like and can respect, but I am not influenced by him and am not striving to do anything like it. I think you are stretching it when you say that his work appears amateurish though.

>>2892686
Just discovering Leyendecker? He's pretty famous, even among non-artists. If you like these guys' work then you should really look into more artists from the time period. Pen and ink was at one of its highest points, and there were a ton of illustrators with a great sense of design in their shapes and brushwork.

I'm not him so I can't say why he hates Leyendecker, but I can give you my criticisms of him. I think the issue for Leyendecker would be that his work is very superficial. It's very design-y and relies on perfect slick brushwork, which can make it feel a bit distant or less emotional and artistic. It essentially can feel a bit too polished and contrived, which makes it have a nice initial impact but means you probably won't be returning to his work over and over. This artificial quality really hurts some of his images in how he chooses to paint things like some faces or babies. I say this as someone who does like his work by the way and thinks he was a very talented artist, but again, I don't want to paint like that myself and there are many other artists who I'd pick over him to hang on my wall. Also maybe it's a silly criticism, but I would have liked to have seen him do some work that wasn't as commercial. He was happy painting sock advertisements his whole life, and good on him for that, but I would have liked to see him paint something more personal to him and with some more depth to it. I guess I'm criticizing an illustrator for being an illustrator though, so you can ignore what i say if you don't agree with it.

>>2892694
>If you like these guys' work then you should really look into more artists from the time period. Pen and ink was at one of its highest points, and there were a ton of illustrators with a great sense of design in their shapes and brushwork.
Didn't have space in the previous comment to list artists for you anon, but some guys you might like...
For pen and ink: Franklin Booth, James Montgomery Flagg, TS Sullivant, Edmund Sullivan, Heinrich Kley, Wilhelm Busch, John R Neill, Willy Pogany. More contemporary ones you might like are Bernie Wrightson, Frank Frazetta, Jeff Jones, Nicolas Delort.

Painters: Alphonse Mucha, Dean Cornwell, Mead Schaeffer, HM Stoops, Walter Everett, NC Wyeth. For more contemporary similar ones you have guys like Greg Manchess and John Watkiss.

>>2892325
Sorry, but I have to agree with that anon. Gibson is good at portraits, but he does not hatch clothing well. You can see that for suits, he just hatches it flatly and draws in wrinkles on top.
The dress in >>2890403 fails to read clearly, and the hatching on the arm is very uneven.
His full illustrations are better, but some areas look rushed.

Sorry, don't mean to shit on an artist you like, just being critical.

>>2892734
>The dress in >>2890403 fails to read clearly
It reads fine. He's just flattened it to decorative shapes, but if you squint your eyes it looks perfectly normal and still reads.

>>2892694
>>2892713
I agree with Leyendeckers' art being too superficial and wish to see some of his work that give at least a little something that showed us more about him the man, than paintings of handsome men smartly dressed. I guess he didn't want the public to know or he just didn't care about that aspect of his art. He was making a killing for those sock advertisements, Now that I think about it he reminds me a bit of Sakimichan kek.

As for his art being slick, I appreciate it for what it is I guess. It is pretty different from a lot of modern artists we have today and even though it comes off as impersonal his style mixed with realism is something that I think I can learn a lot from. Also,thanks for the recommendations, definitely going to look into them, embarrassingly the only one I'm kind of familiar with is Mucha.

File: image.jpg (55KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x360px

Whats the mid-20th century equivalent to Charles Dana Gibson?

>>2892779
I don't know if there is one. Pen and ink sort of died out as printing technology improved, and by the mid-20thC illustration was either full paintings or in the 60/70's was fighting to compete against photography so started getting really experimental. I also don't think that there were many artists who got by on drawing high class society anymore.

>>2892793
Actually you had pen and ink stuff in comics, so technique-wise that's probably where you would find the closest stuff, but subject matter would be very different.

>>2892312
Ah, so that's what the awkward transitional style between the Victorian and flapper dress looked like.

>>2892192
I just expect more because I've seen much better. If I were to crop the mass of folds in the first image, you shouldn't believe it's by a professional from that era.
>>2892325
>assumptions

File: DSC01922 (Large).jpg (227KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1440x1080px

Don't die thread.

File: DSC01944 flc.jpg (4MB, 3448x3032px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3448x3032px

>>2894653
I love the captions.

File: DSC01930 flrs.jpg (2MB, 2608x1956px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2608x1956px

>>2894666

File: DSC01932 flrs.jpg (4MB, 3608x2706px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3608x2706px

>>2894705
Was a bit blurry.

File: DSC01931 flrs.jpg (3MB, 2706x3608px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2706x3608px

>>2894708

File: DSC01928 flc.jpg (2MB, 2608x1956px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2608x1956px

>>2894711

File: DSC01926 flc.jpg (3MB, 2455x3273px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2455x3273px

>>2894712

File: Constanza.jpg (346KB, 1064x984px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1064x984px

>>2894711
I can hear the song already.

I want to git gud at hatching

>>2892770
>wish to see some of his work that give at least a little something that showed us more about him the man, than paintings of handsome men smartly dressed.
He was gay, so that's exactly what he did. It's not exactly hard to tell from the subject matter and style that he was very very gay.

>>2895463
I don't think his sexuality was really obvious in his work. He painted some extremely handsome men, but he also painted some very feminine and beautiful women too.

I do know of his life nad his relationship with Beach, and I don't think he really was putting much of himself into his images really. He liked designed brushwork and illuminated manuscripts and focused his efforts on incorporating those things, but his artwork itself has no real depth to it.

>>2895472
>I don't think his sexuality was really obvious in his work.
In that case you are either blind, or incapable of recognizing patterns because of extreme political correctness.

>>2895522
What? Have a look through his body of work. Honestly very few are sexualized at all. He has lots of handsome men, but lots of beautiful women too. He has painted a lot of ugly men and a lot of children as well. It's not like he painted greasy naked men all day with raging boners.

I suspect you are bringing in your own bias on how you view his work because you know already that he was gay.

>>2895545
What are you talking about? I never said he draws anything sexualized. I said he draws like a gay man.

>He has lots of handsome men
Yes. Many of whom look like they are designed by someone who is sexually attracted to men. I'm not going to go into detail, but the emphasis that a gay man and a straight man puts into different visual traits and concepts when drawing an ideal image of a man are different. A straight man usually wouldn't draw men with rosy cheeks, large bedroom eyes, thick eyelashes and puffy lips, posing in a rather effeminate but elegant manner.

>but lots of beautiful women too.
Yes. So do all the gay fashion designs. You can still draw elegant women and be gay, particularly when it's your job.

>He has painted a lot of ugly men and a lot of children as well.
He was a commercial artist. If course he painted more typical Americana stuff, though his slick style does look somewhat off when trying to portray small town America.

Usually though, his style is almost a reflection of stereotypical gay culture. The stylishness, the clean lines, the obsession with high society/celebrities, the obsession with fashion, and the overall way he draws, poses and designs men.

File: DSC01954 flrs.jpg (3MB, 3608x2706px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3608x2706px

And in THIS corner, we have Pussyfoots Mcgee! In the opposing corner is Sir Trunks Rememberlots!

File: DSC01955 flrs.jpg (3MB, 3608x2706px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3608x2706px

>>2897552