Wacky Art Discussion

[koduck]

First, let me say I know exactly what you're talking about when you say it's hard to work for somebody else after basically being your own boss. You get spoiled.

I was self-syndicated when I started out so I had a ton of freedom. I got a lot of good feedback but one editor wanted me to tone it down a bit because he thought my work was a tad too violent for family newspapers. I remember how pissed I was, (What the hell does he know?) but looking back, he was right.

Now that I'm with a syndicate, my syndicate editors sometimes (but luckily rarely) ask me to change something. If they do, I try to argue my case effectively and many times will win. If I make a change, I can usually doing it without hurting the gag. Sometimes the gag is IMPROVED because I'm forced to think about it more, or to come up with a clever way to get around the censors. Don't get me wrong, I still try to push the envelope. I've learned some tricks and am amazed at some of the suggestive gags that get through to family newspapers. Occasionally a newspaper won't run a cartoon, but I understand.

My initial submissions to Topps were all rejected and I was sooo disappointed because I thought I had some strong ones. This time around, I talked to Jeff directly and was fortunate that things went better.

I also went into it consciously deciding to be flexible. I took some of Jeff's suggestions and didn't assume anything. (For instance, I was originally jazzed to parody products that had not yet been parodied. But Jeff wanted very popular products whether they had been parodied or not. So I changed my mode of thinking and did both. I also removed bugs from one parody without hurting the gag.) I knew I had to please him to get through. Luckily, he liked many of my gags, as is. I feel I had a slight advantage because I've been writing humor professionally since 1987. Yeah, newspaper comics are different, but some of the thought process translates.

I've always considered myself more of a writer than an artist, and I don't paint at all. I'm envious of you painters. The thing that's hardest for me to swallow is seeing the finished designs with some of my gags changed. I'm not used to that at all! But I knew what to expect that going in. I wasn't going to be in control.

I've received my share of rejections over the years, some nice, some blunt. I've learned not to take it personally. I've also learned to stop believing how good people say I am, or how bad people say I am. My skin has gotten a lot thicker since I started. All the bumps and problems and rejections and issues and problem clients have helped me get to this point.

Mark,

Sorry for the belated post but I'm just getting caught up reading all the forum threads. The points you make are really good ones and in one way or another pertain to all of us working for Topps. Personally, I can relate to the conundrum of submitting gags. Sending your hard work to Topps is a little like entering a contest. Many times, they end up in the "reject" pile and you end up asking yourself, how did they pass on this hilarious gag?! And even when you win, there's always the possibility that some detail or another is going to be altered, deleted, borrowed or otherwise "fixed". But if I've learned anything, it's that the editors know their product really well, and they can sense when a gag is right. It's that 2nd sense thing.

Having introduced new artists into the recent postcard series, I'm now in a position of having to make some of those tough choices (more so because the set is so small!). The hardest part is having to tell someone their gag wasn't selected - that really sucks! But it's kind of like holding a deck of cards and each one gets discarded as you play. Once in a while, I have to use one of those cards to say, "Trust me, this is a great gag" or "You've got to give this artist a shot". In your case, I used one of those cards because I knew (and you knew) that you were the genuine article. I'm really happy that things have worked out so well for you and I'm sure you'll be spending plenty of your days (and nights!) at the Wacky drawing table! Just remember, keep those editors happy!

best,
-Neil

[Gurgle]

Mark,

Sorry for the belated post but I'm just getting caught up reading all the forum threads. The points you make are really good ones and in one way or another pertain to all of us working for Topps. Personally, I can relate to the conundrum of submitting gags. Sending your hard work to Topps is a little like entering a contest. Many times, they end up in the "reject" pile and you end up asking yourself, how did they pass on this hilarious gag?! And even when you win, there's always the possibility that some detail or another is going to be altered, deleted, borrowed or otherwise "fixed". But if I've learned anything, it's that the editors know their product really well, and they can sense when a gag is right. It's that 2nd sense thing.

Having introduced new artists into the recent postcard series, I'm now in a position of having to make some of those tough choices (more so because the set is so small!). The hardest part is having to tell someone their gag wasn't selected - that really sucks! But it's kind of like holding a deck of cards and each one gets discarded as you play. Once in a while, I have to use one of those cards to say, "Trust me, this is a great gag" or "You've got to give this artist a shot". In your case, I used one of those cards because I knew (and you knew) that you were the genuine article. I'm really happy that things have worked out so well for you and I'm sure you'll be spending plenty of your days (and nights!) at the Wacky drawing table! Just remember, keep those editors happy!

best,
-Neil

Thanks, Neil! I hope none of that was perceived as complaining because it wasn't. Just things I've learned along the way. Thanks for sucking me into the Wacky family!

[Fanatical_and_Sickly]

Here's what they said;
...Country Spock was a legal issue...

I finally stumbled on to this whole thread. Some fascinating reading all the way around and some great art and gags to look at too. I look at some of these finished pieces with solid art and knowing they were rejected I wonder yet again how in the world some of the artistically weak ones got through in past ANS sets if they are so picky.

It's also hilarious how Topps felt that Country Spock was a legal issue and then they go ahead and publish Kiss Kat in ANS7. Makes no sense.

[Gurgle]

I finally stumbled on to this whole thread. Some fascinating reading all the way around and some great art and gags to look at too. I look at some of these finished pieces with solid art and knowing they were rejected I wonder yet again how in the world some of the artistically weak ones got through in past ANS sets if they are so picky.

It's also hilarious how Topps felt that Country Spock was a legal issue and then they go ahead and publish Kiss Kat in ANS7. Makes no sense.

Exactly. Like I said, they used Porky Pig in the past so sometimes they decide to bend their own rules.

[koduck]

Thanks, Neil! I hope none of that was perceived as complaining because it wasn't. Just things I've learned along the way.

Not at all! Your stories are something we can all relate to! I just wish it were easier to get guys with your talent involved in wackys!

[Smokin Joe]

This may come as no surprise, bit I've got a growing pile of Wacky Rejects as well. I'd love to know why they ended up as rejects... but have also accepted it as part of the process. I'm hoping some day they make it into a Wacky Rejects series... kind of an island of misfit stickers. Probably be the greatest series ever created. (or possibly the worst.)

[Sue Mee]

This may come as no surprise, bit I've got a growing pile of Wacky Rejects as well. I'd love to know why they ended up as rejects... but have also accepted it as part of the process. I'm hoping some day they make it into a Wacky Rejects series... kind of an island of misfit stickers. Probably be the greatest series ever created. (or possibly the worst.)

Sounds like a great project to me!

[Jean Nutty]

This may come as no surprise, bit I've got a growing pile of Wacky Rejects as well. I'd love to know why they ended up as rejects... but have also accepted it as part of the process. I'm hoping some day they make it into a Wacky Rejects series... kind of an island of misfit stickers. Probably be the greatest series ever created. (or possibly the worst.)

If they're not stickers you could call them "Wacky Discards"   

[dth1971]

Does the Topps Vault plan anytime before 2010 is over to have up for auction the art for shut out of Wacky Packages ANS7 Wack-O-Mercial entry "Sparkler Paper Towels"? Unless this is planned for a 7th. Wacky Packages postcard series?

[Plan 9]

Can anyone identify the players in this fascinating scene? All I know is that it took place in Vegas.

[BRUTE_88]

Can anyone identify the players in this fascinating scene? All I know is that it took place in Vegas.

Hey Mark,
That would be the Big Vegas trading session that occurred back in the summer of 2000/2001...
The person on the left is Scott Broberg, in the middle is Matt Stock, and on the right is John Mellard.  I believe Greg Grant was there as well, and is probably the one that is taking the picture.

Oh, and it was discussed back then (by Scott) to play a game of poker and ante-up a piece of art!... true story.

[BumChex]

I'm confused by the lines around the lettering on this Brylscream art. Where the letters attached separately?
http://cgi.ebay.com/2009-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Old-School-Art-BRYLSCREAM-/150508985879

I'm also noticing it on this art piece as well.
http://cgi.ebay.com/2009-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Old-School-Color-Art-BUBBLE-/140476540782

[Fanatical_and_Sickly]

I'm confused by the lines around the lettering on this Brylscream art. Where the letters attached separately?
http://cgi.ebay.com/2009-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Old-School-Art-BRYLSCREAM-/150508985879

I'm also noticing it on this art piece as well.
http://cgi.ebay.com/2009-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Old-School-Color-Art-BUBBLE-/140476540782

most likely separate. Dave talked about this during ANS4 I think, as a way to address all the complaints about the tiny lettering not looking picture perfect.
I believe your Stake 5 has some similar lettering, no?

[BumChex]

most likely separate. Dave talked about this during ANS4 I think, as a way to address all the complaints about the tiny lettering not looking picture perfect.
I believe your Stake 5 has some similar lettering, no?

None that I can see.

[Plan 9]

I'm confused by the lines around the lettering on this Brylscream art. Where the letters attached separately?
http://cgi.ebay.com/2009-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Old-School-Art-BRYLSCREAM-/150508985879

I'm also noticing it on this art piece as well.
http://cgi.ebay.com/2009-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Old-School-Color-Art-BUBBLE-/140476540782

Dave Gross' method of doing text is to print it onto acetate, attach it to the painting and paint over it up to the text. So you can usually see the step from the art paper to the acetate. For some reason the paint tends to pull back from the edge of the acetate after a very short time and you end up with a white line at the edge of the acetate. Dave is always willing to do touch-ups for art buyers and he's painting more of the text now. It's not my favorite thing to see overlays stuck in the art but it has a kind of raw old school quality about it. I just hope that the ink he uses to print the text won't fade or change in 10 years. Text is extremely tedious to paint on a 5x7 Wacky. That's why I did all my paintings 11x14 to make it easier to paint text. Also so the art has more of a presence when hanging on the wall. It kinda sucks to pay thousands of dollars for paintings that look so tiny on display. Some artists paint them 8x10 and even a little bigger. Those have SO much more presence simply because of their size.

[BumChex]

Dave Gross' method of doing text is to print it onto acetate, attach it to the painting and paint over it up to the text. So you can usually see the step from the art paper to the acetate. For some reason the paint tends to pull back from the edge of the acetate after a very short time and you end up with a white line at the edge of the acetate. Dave is always willing to do touch-ups for art buyers and he's painting more of the text now. It's not my favorite thing to see overlays stuck in the art but it has a kind of raw old school quality about it. I just hope that the ink he uses to print the text won't fade or change in 10 years. Text is extremely tedious to paint on a 5x7 Wacky. That's why I did all my paintings 11x14 to make it easier to paint text. Also so the art has more of a presence when hanging on the wall. It kinda sucks to pay thousands of dollars for paintings that look so tiny on display. Some artists paint them 8x10 and even a little bigger. Those have SO much more presence simply because of their size.

I didn't measure the stakes art but it's like 6X10. I can't tell any attached lettering. If you look at the scan you can't see any. I was thinking of buying the Brylscream but after seeing that I'm not so sure.

[Fanatical_and_Sickly]

I didn't measure the stakes art but it's like 6X10. I can't tell any attached lettering. If you look at the scan you can't see any. I was thinking of buying the Brylscream but after seeing that I'm not so sure.

really? after looking at that high res scan of Stake 5, I swear there are 3 sets of attached lettering:
Help Me
Keep Vampires at bay with
made with garlic mirrors sunlight

[BumChex]

really? after looking at that high res scan of Stake 5, I swear there are 3 sets of attached lettering:
Help Me
Keep Vampires at bay with
made with garlic mirrors sunlight

You are right. I never noticed it before. I just felt the art and put it under a lighted magnifying glass and yes you are correct. Now I feel cheated
It looks like a sticker was applied. It's not obvious to the naked eye but once you magnify it then it's pretty obvious. Not as noticeable as the 2 ebay sketches I mentioned though.

[Sue Mee]

Can anyone identify the players in this fascinating scene? All I know is that it took place in Vegas.

I don't know who they are but I can tell you it was taken on May 3rd, 2003 at 6:47pm with a Nikon E3500 @ ISO 196 / with an aperture of f/2.7 and a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second.

[Plan 9]

Hey Mark,
That would be the Big Vegas trading session that occurred back in the summer of 2000/2001...
The person on the left is Scott Broberg, in the middle is Matt Stock, and on the right is John Mellard.  I believe Greg Grant was there as well, and is probably the one that is taking the picture.

Oh, and it was discussed back then (by Scott) to play a game of poker and ante-up a piece of art!... true story.

Are Scott and John still Wacky art collectors? Or I guess it's "traders" since new Saunders art isn't showing up much in recent years.

[slamjim]

Dave Gross' method of doing text is to print it onto acetate, attach it to the painting and paint over it up to the text. So you can usually see the step from the art paper to the acetate. For some reason the paint tends to pull back from the edge of the acetate after a very short time and you end up with a white line at the edge of the acetate. Dave is always willing to do touch-ups for art buyers and he's painting more of the text now. It's not my favorite thing to see overlays stuck in the art but it has a kind of raw old school quality about it. I just hope that the ink he uses to print the text won't fade or change in 10 years. Text is extremely tedious to paint on a 5x7 Wacky. That's why I did all my paintings 11x14 to make it easier to paint text. Also so the art has more of a presence when hanging on the wall. It kinda sucks to pay thousands of dollars for paintings that look so tiny on display. Some artists paint them 8x10 and even a little bigger. Those have SO much more presence simply because of their size.

Tons of things wrong in this post so I have to jump in so it's accurate.

I hand painted all lettering on all my ANS2 and ANS3 paintings.

I used the overlays on most of the ANS4-ANS6 and OLDS1 lettering but it only recedes a hair's length on areas were I placed the acetate on the painting on unpainted paper. Any that I placed on top of a painted area looks fine. Something I discovered later. Most of ANS4 pieces don't show anything. You see it more on the other three series and it's a very thin line I can easily touch-up if it happened to show.

Important: It won't fade because I hand painted all the lettering over the acetate. I did not just leave the inkjet ink or paint it up to the text. It's on top of the text. It's the same as any other part of the painting.

ANS7 and the new OLDS2 are 95% hand painted. I'm only using the acetate now in mostly extreme spots where the lettering would be a nightmare (like some thing box sides). Most are fully hand painted and any place I do use the acetate it's over painted areas so none of the ANS7 or OLDS2 pieces will show lines. Ditz, for example is 100% acetate free but Just For Wolfmen I used it on the box side and some tiny black lettering yet it won't recede because I placed it over the painted areas and then painted over the acetate. The last 20 or so OLDS2 I painted I literally only used the acetate on 1 single line of text.

I paint at 5x7 because that is what Saunders and the other original OS artists did. If anyone has ever seen Greg's art wall I think the small paintings have a ton of presence especially in nice grouping. I like this size better. More intimate and they look great framed with a version of the sticker next to it (the rough as well).

[slamjim]

I didn't measure the stakes art but it's like 6X10. I can't tell any attached lettering. If you look at the scan you can't see any. I was thinking of buying the Brylscream but after seeing that I'm not so sure.

If you did get this piece it's a super easy fix. I just have to touch-up the black which is straight from the tube. All the lettering is hand painted on the acetate so it's not just a printed thing stuck down. It's just there to be a guide for accurate lettering. It's like using the press on lettering but that stuff can crumble or can rub off. I didn't learn of the receding spots until OLDS1 and anything after that I know exactly what to do to prevent it. Again, I'm also leaving the acetate behind in at least 95% of the situations because I don't need it anymore.

[Dr Popper]

You are right. I never noticed it before. I just felt the art and put it under a lighted magnifying glass and yes you are correct. Now I feel cheated
It looks like a sticker was applied. It's not obvious to the naked eye but once you magnify it then it's pretty obvious. Not as noticeable as the 2 ebay sketches I mentioned though.

That sucks dude.........I'll give you 100 bucks for it.

[paste_anyplace]

The name is actually "Sparker," without an "L." Unlike the legendary "Cream of Meat," the Sparker gag was painted. I think it's too soon after ANS7 to tell what Topps will do with it but I doubt that you would see it in a Postcard set.

Does the Topps Vault plan anytime before 2010 is over to have up for auction the art for shut out of Wacky Packages ANS7 Wack-O-Mercial entry "Sparkler Paper Towels"? Unless this is planned for a 7th. Wacky Packages postcard series?

[Plan 9]

Tons of things wrong in this post so I have to jump in so it's accurate.

I hand painted all lettering on all my ANS2 and ANS3 paintings.

I used the overlays on most of the ANS4-ANS6 and OLDS1 lettering but it only recedes a hair's length on areas were I placed the acetate on the painting on unpainted paper. Any that I placed on top of a painted area looks fine. Something I discovered later. Most of ANS4 pieces don't show anything. You see it more on the other three series and it's a very thin line I can easily touch-up if it happened to show.

Important: It won't fade because I hand painted all the lettering over the acetate. I did not just leave the inkjet ink or paint it up to the text. It's on top of the text. It's the same as any other part of the painting.

ANS7 and the new OLDS2 are 95% hand painted. I'm only using the acetate now in mostly extreme spots where the lettering would be a nightmare (like some thing box sides). Most are fully hand painted and any place I do use the acetate it's over painted areas so none of the ANS7 or OLDS2 pieces will show lines. Ditz, for example is 100% acetate free but Just For Wolfmen I used it on the box side and some tiny black lettering yet it won't recede because I placed it over the painted areas and then painted over the acetate. The last 20 or so OLDS2 I painted I literally only used the acetate on 1 single line of text.

I paint at 5x7 because that is what Saunders and the other original OS artists did. If anyone has ever seen Greg's art wall I think the small paintings have a ton of presence especially in nice grouping. I like this size better. More intimate and they look great framed with a version of the sticker next to it (the rough as well).

I figured you'd clarify the specifics. Our opinions differ about the size though. Saunders did 5x7 because of production limitations of the time. There's no question he would have done them larger if he was allowed. Especially with his vision problems. If he came back today I think he'd say "What's with you guys? Paint bigger!" When I opened the box on my first ANS piece and saw the size I said...whuh? But I realize there's a nostalgic purpose for you to do them in that size. Que sera sera.

[koduck]

Fred's right, Sparker won't ever be a postcard.

[bandaches]

I figured you'd clarify the specifics. Our opinions differ about the size though. Saunders did 5x7 because of production limitations of the time. There's no question he would have done them larger if he was allowed. Especially with his vision problems. If he came back today I think he'd say "What's with you guys? Paint bigger!" When I opened the box on my first ANS piece and saw the size I said...whuh? But I realize there's a nostalgic purpose for you to do them in that size. Que sera sera.

Norm's pulp cover art is much bigger, it is some of the most beautiful art you will ever see.  I have seen several in person.  I agree, he would have painted bigger if he was allowed.  I thought he painted smaller because Topps wanted to reduce distortion possibilities of the image in sizing to the card size.

[koduck]

The general rule is that you can get more detail in a 5x7 painting than say, an 18x24. That's one of the biggest reasons they were originally painted so small. But Norm's style was well suited for a larger canvas, so I suppose if he had painted wackys larger, they would have been as good (if not better) than the smaller boards he painted on.

[Jean Nutty]

The general rule is that you can get more detail in a 5x7 painting than say, an 18x24.

Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I assume for many non-artists like myself, that’s contrary to the assumption that more space allows for more detail.

[slamjim]

I figured you'd clarify the specifics. Our opinions differ about the size though. Saunders did 5x7 because of production limitations of the time. There's no question he would have done them larger if he was allowed. Especially with his vision problems. If he came back today I think he'd say "What's with you guys? Paint bigger!" When I opened the box on my first ANS piece and saw the size I said...whuh? But I realize there's a nostalgic purpose for you to do them in that size. Que sera sera.

Next series I'll paint the first one at a bigger size and see how I like it and also find out if it doubles my work time. That is also something I'd have to consider. It would obviously make the lettering easier to paint so maybe would make up for any extra time the rest would be. I'm sure Norm wouldn't have liked to have had double the work for the pay Topps was giving him! The complaints of his pay have been so well documented.

[koduck]

Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I assume for many non-artists like myself, that’s contrary to the assumption that more space allows for more detail.

Sure. Here's a simple (?) equation that should make more sense of it:

The number of brush strokes per square inch is directly proportionate to the amount of detail. Because an artist is more likely to use a small brush (00 or 000) on a typical wacky canvas, inevitably you get more detail.

Here's an example: Let's say I paint the same wacky twice. One's a 5x7 and the other 18 x 24. A square inch on the 5x7 will probably have dozen's of brush strokes (if not hundreds). That same area on a 18 x 24 is likely to have maybe a dozen, because I'd be using a much larger brush. Unless of course, I was nuts, and used a 000 brush. Then it would blow my equation all to hell!

[RawGoo]

Sure. Here's a simple (?) equation that should make more sense of it:

The number of brush strokes per square inch is directly proportionate to the amount of detail. Because an artist is more likely to use a small brush (00 or 000) on a typical wacky canvas, inevitably you get more detail.

Here's an example: Let's say I paint the same wacky twice. One's a 5x7 and the other 18 x 24. A square inch on the 5x7 will probably have dozen's of brush strokes (if not hundreds). That same area on a 18 x 24 is likely to have maybe a dozen, because I'd be using a much larger brush. Unless of course, I was nuts, and used a 000 brush. Then it would blow my equation all to hell!

I've used 00 and 000 brushes on models, and the thought of using them on a canvas boggles my mind!

[Jean Nutty]

Sure. Here's a simple (?) equation that should make more sense of it:

The number of brush strokes per square inch is directly proportionate to the amount of detail. Because an artist is more likely to use a small brush (00 or 000) on a typical wacky canvas, inevitably you get more detail.

Here's an example: Let's say I paint the same wacky twice. One's a 5x7 and the other 18 x 24. A square inch on the 5x7 will probably have dozen's of brush strokes (if not hundreds). That same area on a 18 x 24 is likely to have maybe a dozen, because I'd be using a much larger brush. Unless of course, I was nuts, and used a 000 brush. Then it would blow my equation all to hell!

Great explanation, thanks.

On one hand I assume there must be huge difference in technique when painting a small 5x7 canvas with a tiny 000 brush, compared to say, the Sistine Chapel.
But on the other hand, it might be the same, only a difference in scale.

I wonder if Michelangelo looked like Ditch Boy up there on his scaffold.

[Plan 9]

Sure. Here's a simple (?) equation that should make more sense of it:

The number of brush strokes per square inch is directly proportionate to the amount of detail. Because an artist is more likely to use a small brush (00 or 000) on a typical wacky canvas, inevitably you get more detail.

Here's an example: Let's say I paint the same wacky twice. One's a 5x7 and the other 18 x 24. A square inch on the 5x7 will probably have dozen's of brush strokes (if not hundreds). That same area on a 18 x 24 is likely to have maybe a dozen, because I'd be using a much larger brush. Unless of course, I was nuts, and used a 000 brush. Then it would blow my equation all to hell!

Quality over quantity I prefer. More can be accomplished with fewer but skilled brush strokes.
When painting Wackys on a larger canvas the improvements would be found in two key areas. The text would be sharper and gradients would be more finessed. I've noticed most of the 5x7 Wacky art by today's artists lack a subtle gradation on rounded forms like faces and arms. Norm had an extraordinary ability to blend so well that he could render a tiny face without showing the color gradations as steps. It would be a perfect blend from light to dark and into the next color. I think painting larger would help the younger artists of today improve that quality. Lest we forget, Saunders was a genius from the start AND he had a lifetime of practice before he got to Wacky Packs.

[koduck]

I wasn't talking about quality vs quantity. I think we can all agree, quality wins out. I was referring to the law of averages when it comes to the number of brush strokes. Even Norm Saunders would have been more apt to apply more brush strokes on a smaller painting than a larger one. Your certainly right about his style,though - he got a lot of mileage out of every brush stroke.