Author Topic: Wacky Art Discussion  (Read 142735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Plan 9

  • Posts: 1378
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #105 on: November 13, 2010, 07:39:36 PM »
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. Simple as that.
By your measure, I should be able to paint the side of my house with just a few strokes. If you're not using your detail brushes just because you've scaled up to a larger canvas then you're not taking full advantage of what a larger canvas has to offer and you're probably not spending enough time blending gradations.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 07:45:07 PM by Plan 9 »

Offline paste_anyplace

  • is just this guy, you know?
  • Posts: 367
    • Fred Wheaton's home page at hipsteria.com
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #106 on: November 13, 2010, 08:44:00 PM »
I painted my ANS6 and ANS7 stuff at the traditional 5x7 size. I painted my one postcard piece at something more like 8x10. My aging eyes liked the 8x10 a little better, and I don't recall that it took appreciably longer.

Offline Plan 9

  • Posts: 1378
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #107 on: November 13, 2010, 08:54:10 PM »
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.
Oh man that's exciting to hear! Thanks for trying out a larger size.

Offline koduck

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2579
  • Make it snappy!
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #108 on: November 14, 2010, 04:02:55 AM »
By your measure, I should be able to paint the side of my house with just a few strokes. If you're not using your detail brushes just because you've scaled up to a larger canvas then you're not taking full advantage of what a larger canvas has to offer and you're probably not spending enough time blending gradations.


Here's my "art lesson" for you: If you paint a house, you're going to use the biggest brush you can get, right? If you paint a 5x7 wacky, you're going to use a little brush. Painting 101.

Offline deadpresidentsvisa

  • Posts: 2654
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #109 on: November 14, 2010, 02:34:28 PM »

Here's my "art lesson" for you: If you paint a house, you're going to use the biggest brush you can get, right? If you paint a 5x7 wacky, you're going to use a little brush. Painting 101.
"End Of The Lesson"
"DID YOU TRY MONKEYING WITH IT" FROM *THE HOT ROCK*....ROBERT REDFORD...ZERO MOSTEL

Offline dth1971

  • Posts: 1663
Re: Shut out of ANS7 Wacky Packages entry: Sparkler Paper Towels
« Reply #110 on: November 14, 2010, 07:47:33 PM »
Maybe Sparker could be a contender if Topps gets a green light for Wacky Packages ANS8 in 2011.

Offline slamjim

  • Posts: 2054
  • OLDS11 in late 2023!
Re: Shut out of ANS7 Wacky Packages entry: Sparkler Paper Towels
« Reply #111 on: November 14, 2010, 09:12:43 PM »
Maybe Sparker could be a contender if Topps gets a green light for Wacky Packages ANS8 in 2011.

Sparker is a Lost Wacky now. They won't use it. They pulled it due to excessive violence (they don't like the idea of a pyromaniac and burning down the family house). Here is the pic:




Offline Crakola Crayons

  • 10+ years of homemades
  • Posts: 798
  • "...I'll stop the world and melt with you..."
    • Martin's View (blog about music, TV, movies and comics)
Re: Shut out of ANS7 Wacky Packages entry: Sparkler Paper Towels
« Reply #112 on: November 15, 2010, 03:04:11 AM »
Bummer.  That's a pretty cool one - but I can see where it might have made them a little to skittish.
My blog on music, comics, film and more - Martin's View - http://mcmaenza.blogspot.com/

Offline crackedjerk

  • Posts: 1510
Re: Shut out of ANS7 Wacky Packages entry: Sparkler Paper Towels
« Reply #113 on: November 15, 2010, 09:58:27 AM »
Bummer.  That's a pretty cool one - but I can see where it might have made them a little to skittish.

I agree on both counts.

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: Shut out of ANS7 Wacky Packages entry: Sparkler Paper Towels
« Reply #114 on: November 15, 2010, 01:24:29 PM »
Sparker is a Lost Wacky now. They won't use it. They pulled it due to excessive violence (they don't like the idea of a pyromaniac and burning down the family house). Here is the pic:





I like it. I'll give you $100 for the art ;D

Offline slamjim

  • Posts: 2054
  • OLDS11 in late 2023!
Re: Shut out of ANS7 Wacky Packages entry: Sparkler Paper Towels
« Reply #115 on: November 15, 2010, 03:22:19 PM »
I like it. I'll give you $100 for the art ;D

Topps bought it so they will auction it off at some point I would imagine.

Offline Plan 9

  • Posts: 1378
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #116 on: December 07, 2010, 02:02:36 PM »
I found a recent pic of the Spit and Spill art. It's in bad shape.
Kleenaxe looks really god. Look how nicely this character is rendered. Subtle. No heavy contrast. Just a few hints of white highlights. Lots of personality. Forms feel rounded rather than looking flat like a cartoon character. Sure it's cartoony. But it's illustrative cartoony. Not Sunday comics cartoony. We need more of this type of character rendering in today's Wacky Packages.

Offline Kook

  • Posts: 1107
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #117 on: December 07, 2010, 02:10:30 PM »
I found a recent pic of the Spit and Spill art. It's in bad shape.
Kleenaxe looks really god. Look how nicely this character is rendered. Subtle. No heavy contrast. Just a few hints of white highlights. Lots of personality. Forms feel rounded rather than looking flat like a cartoon character. Sure it's cartoony. But it's illustrative cartoony. Not Sunday comics cartoony. We need more of this type of character rendering in today's Wacky Packages.

As Rob has mentioned before and I agree entirely - It's artwork like this (Saunders) that is the reason we are all here on a website about wackys today, 35 to 40 or so years later. I highly doubt we'd be passionately collecting crazy covers (or other similar "cartoonish" art) from the day.

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #118 on: December 07, 2010, 02:25:01 PM »
I never quite got this giant head spitting on a house gag for Spit and Spill. I like it but don't get the concept.

Offline Duznt

  • Posts: 1199
  • - John K -
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #119 on: December 07, 2010, 04:51:59 PM »
I never quite got this giant head spitting on a house gag for Spit and Spill. I like it but don't get the concept.

The original product had a mop pictured on the front of the box. So, the mop handle became the spit stream, and the mop head became the house. See the pic below. Couldn't find the exact one with a quick search... The box color is wrong, but you get the idea.

Offline Fanatical_and_Sickly

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5690
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #120 on: December 07, 2010, 05:26:41 PM »
I found a recent pic of the Spit and Spill art. It's in bad shape.
Kleenaxe looks really god. 
you're right - Kleenaxe *is* god. All hail the axe.

dang. that Spit and Spill is messed up. And after seeing this great scan and the smaller details - I gotta wonder. Is that really a Saunders painting? Because I don't think it looks good enough to be his work. It looks too crude and doesn't have his amazing finesse for detail that his others have.

Offline Plan 9

  • Posts: 1378
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #121 on: December 07, 2010, 06:13:15 PM »
you're right - Kleenaxe *is* god. All hail the axe.

dang. that Spit and Spill is messed up. And after seeing this great scan and the smaller details - I gotta wonder. Is that really a Saunders painting? Because I don't think it looks good enough to be his work. It looks too crude and doesn't have his amazing finesse for detail that his others have.
Saunders painted with varying degrees of detail and finesse. On Spit and Spill you can tell by the character rendering that it's a Saunders.

It's cool to see they never actually painted over the "Spic and Span" on the top and side flaps.

Offline Fanatical_and_Sickly

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5690
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #122 on: December 07, 2010, 06:49:08 PM »
Saunders painted with varying degrees of detail and finesse. On Spit and Spill you can tell by the character rendering that it's a Saunders.
hmm. that's exactly why I don't think it's Saunders, those characters. Especially the little dude running away. The legs and arms are out of proportion and the face is very cartoonish. and those hands. what's up with those?
And that house is poorly done too. The two sets of windows don't match up in size. Saunders was amazing at the precision stuff and I think he would have gotten the two window panes to be near identical.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 06:50:58 PM by Fanatical_and_Sickly »

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #123 on: December 07, 2010, 08:43:19 PM »
The original product had a mop pictured on the front of the box. So, the mop handle became the spit stream, and the mop head became the house. See the pic below. Couldn't find the exact one with a quick search... The box color is wrong, but you get the idea.


Thanks for posting that. You forget how these products looked at the time. It might even be the same today because I don't buy Spic and Span

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #124 on: December 07, 2010, 08:46:59 PM »
hmm. that's exactly why I don't think it's Saunders, those characters. Especially the little dude running away. The legs and arms are out of proportion and the face is very cartoonish. and those hands. what's up with those?
And that house is poorly done too. The two sets of windows don't match up in size. Saunders was amazing at the precision stuff and I think he would have gotten the two window panes to be near identical.

I totally agree and with the painting blown up you can really see the lack of detail. Are we really sure this was a Saunders piece?

Offline paste_anyplace

  • is just this guy, you know?
  • Posts: 367
    • Fred Wheaton's home page at hipsteria.com
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #125 on: December 07, 2010, 09:13:49 PM »
Saunders painted with varying degrees of detail and finesse. On Spit and Spill you can tell by the character rendering that it's a Saunders.

I agree. Saunders knew that he was painting for trading card size and for poor printing. Detail was going to be lost anyway. The enlarged scan doesn't represent the size he worked on. Print it out at 5 x 7 size and you'll see that the running figure, for example, is less than an inch tall. And on the sticker he's under half an inch. But the character's expression and action are communicated clearly.

Offline slamjim

  • Posts: 2054
  • OLDS11 in late 2023!
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #126 on: December 08, 2010, 01:30:13 AM »
100% Saunders. No doubt in my mind. Blow up Sugar Daffy. That is the stuff that shows you some serious non-Saunders work.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #127 on: December 08, 2010, 02:08:43 AM »
The original product had a mop pictured on the front of the box. So, the mop handle became the spit stream, and the mop head became the house. See the pic below. Couldn't find the exact one with a quick search... The box color is wrong, but you get the idea.


Saw this discussion, and pulled this from my files to post.  It's pretty much the exact early 70's Spic and Span box that is parodied on Spit and Spill. 


Proctor & Gamble - Spic and Span - cleaner box package - 1970's by JasonLiebig, on Flickr
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #128 on: December 08, 2010, 11:10:24 AM »
We need more of this type of character rendering in today's Wacky Packages.

I get your point, but it's kinda like watching Michael Jordan play and saying "we need more of this type of play in the NBA." In terms of style, I agree with you, it's the execution that's harder to match.

Offline Plan 9

  • Posts: 1378
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #129 on: December 08, 2010, 02:05:44 PM »
I get your point, but it's kinda like watching Michael Jordan play and saying "we need more of this type of play in the NBA." In terms of style, I agree with you, it's the execution that's harder to match.
Norm created a style for Wacky Packs. That was the hard part. That was the genius. Replicating a style is easy. I don't mean to diminish Saunders but he is by no means the Michal Jordan of illustration. Rockwell could've beat Saunders with one eye tied behind his back. Besides, Norm's Wacky work was a simpler element of his talents. I can name several Wacky artists working today who I am sure are capable of coming close to Norm's Wacky style or some variation of it if they practice. They need to stop spending so much time on gag writing and practice illustrative character design. Characters are more important to Wackys than gags. Characters last longer and resonate deeper than any play on words.

Here's what I suggest to those artists. You start by copying Norm's characters. That's not too hard. I've done it with good results and I have little experience with painting. The next step is to invent variations of Norm's characters. Then finally you branch off and create your own characters while applying Norm's methods. There are methods in Norm's work. Methods can be duplicated. One of them is finding good photographic reference. There's no shortage of odd looking people on the internet or on your block. Another is to practice copying the character styles of Jack Davis, Wally Wood, Will Elder and Jay Lynch. Most of Norm's characters are based on the designs of those artists.

Offline Dr Popper

  • Posts: 3367
    • Non-Wackys
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #130 on: December 08, 2010, 02:51:04 PM »
Characters are more important to Wackys than gags. Characters last longer and resonate deeper than any play on words.


I'm not sure if that's as true today but it certainly was for me when I was a kid.  I don't really remember reading the gags or trying to understand what they meant, but I definitely focused on the character and the overall look of the art.   
Dr Popper (aka Rob Palmer)

Offline Gurgle

  • recommends zircon-encrusted tweezers
  • Posts: 1249
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #131 on: December 08, 2010, 04:32:27 PM »
I think Norm's genius was his ability to simulate details in a limited space. He knew the images were going to be reduced so he added a kind of loose detail. It isn't fussy or tight at all. Once the image is reduced, it all falls into place and look rather amazing.

I also think copying a Saunders character is one thing and it's another thing to be able to apply his style to someone's own work. For instance, Plan 9's ability to paint the Kleenaxe guy was stunning. I don't think, however, that the Sweet 'N Slow woman looks like a Saunders piece. I think it's bold thing for a painter to attempt to replicate his style but still difficult to accomplish.

Offline Gurgle

  • recommends zircon-encrusted tweezers
  • Posts: 1249
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #132 on: December 08, 2010, 04:34:36 PM »
I'm not sure if that's as true today but it certainly was for me when I was a kid.  I don't really remember reading the gags or trying to understand what they meant, but I definitely focused on the character and the overall look of the art.   

It was the whole enchilada for me. I would not have had any interest in Wackys at all if they were not funny. And I would only be mildly interested if the art wasn't so perfect.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #133 on: December 08, 2010, 05:08:37 PM »
Norm created a style for Wacky Packs. That was the hard part. That was the genius. Replicating a style is easy. I don't mean to diminish Saunders but he is by no means the Michal Jordan of illustration. Rockwell could've beat Saunders with one eye tied behind his back. Besides, Norm's Wacky work was a simpler element of his talents. I can name several Wacky artists working today who I am sure are capable of coming close to Norm's Wacky style or some variation of it if they practice. They need to stop spending so much time on gag writing and practice illustrative character design. Characters are more important to Wackys than gags. Characters last longer and resonate deeper than any play on words.

Here's what I suggest to those artists. You start by copying Norm's characters. That's not too hard. I've done it with good results and I have little experience with painting. The next step is to invent variations of Norm's characters. Then finally you branch off and create your own characters while applying Norm's methods. There are methods in Norm's work. Methods can be duplicated. One of them is finding good photographic reference. There's no shortage of odd looking people on the internet or on your block. Another is to practice copying the character styles of Jack Davis, Wally Wood, Will Elder and Jay Lynch. Most of Norm's characters are based on the designs of those artists.

I once met an actor who sort of looked like Heath Ledger, and after some discussion, he stated in no uncertain terms that he could do what Ledger did - that it "wasn't that difficult."  Perhaps he was right, but I only had his word to take.  I could only see that he didn't have Ledger's career then... and doesn't have it now.  I tell that story because some of your statements here raise the same kind of skepticism in me.

I think you're accurate in stating that creating the style Norm did was genius.  I agree.  But to imply that he wasn't making new artistic decisions on each piece he approached, if that's what you're implying (I'm not certain) - I think that's flawed.  

Copying a style, be it in music, visual art, or literature is a skill - but when that work makes an impact - there's more to it than that.  

The ideas or advice you offer here appears reasonable and sound - but do you believe the current crop of Wacky Packages painters are missing something that you're seeing?  Is it clear they're not already taking ideas like this into consideration?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2010, 05:15:07 PM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 4714
  • http://www.wackypackage.com/
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #134 on: December 08, 2010, 06:50:14 PM »
100% Saunders. No doubt in my mind. Blow up Sugar Daffy. That is the stuff that shows you some serious non-Saunders work.
Are you sure it is 100% Saunders?  Recall that Norm touched up others' work so in some cases he did nothing but try to lend 3D rendering to otherwise average work.  We used to have debates on whether Norm just touching a piece made it a "Saunders" piece.  For me it became easy at that point, lower grade work like Spic N Span is lower grade work, end of story.  I stopped getting hung up on whether Saunders blew his nose on a piece to make it a Saunders piece.
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!  Visit my website http://www.wackypackage.com/

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 4714
  • http://www.wackypackage.com/
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #135 on: December 08, 2010, 06:53:51 PM »
Norm created a style for Wacky Packs. That was the hard part. That was the genius. Replicating a style is easy. I don't mean to diminish Saunders but he is by no means the Michal Jordan of illustration. Rockwell could've beat Saunders with one eye tied behind his back. Besides, Norm's Wacky work was a simpler element of his talents. I can name several Wacky artists working today who I am sure are capable of coming close to Norm's Wacky style or some variation of it if they practice. They need to stop spending so much time on gag writing and practice illustrative character design. Characters are more important to Wackys than gags. Characters last longer and resonate deeper than any play on words.

Here's what I suggest to those artists. You start by copying Norm's characters. That's not too hard. I've done it with good results and I have little experience with painting. The next step is to invent variations of Norm's characters. Then finally you branch off and create your own characters while applying Norm's methods. There are methods in Norm's work. Methods can be duplicated. One of them is finding good photographic reference. There's no shortage of odd looking people on the internet or on your block. Another is to practice copying the character styles of Jack Davis, Wally Wood, Will Elder and Jay Lynch. Most of Norm's characters are based on the designs of those artists.
You might do yourself well to stop thinking Wackys were Norm's best work. far from it, might be some of his worst work due to his being given zero time to create these.  Look at his Frankenstein sticker art or some of his Pulp covers and it is like Apples and Oranges.  I dare say you would be hard pressed to match a Norm Pulp cover.
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!  Visit my website http://www.wackypackage.com/

Offline slamjim

  • Posts: 2054
  • OLDS11 in late 2023!
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #136 on: December 08, 2010, 08:08:50 PM »
Are you sure it is 100% Saunders?  Recall that Norm touched up others' work so in some cases he did nothing but try to lend 3D rendering to otherwise average work.  We used to have debates on whether Norm just touching a piece made it a "Saunders" piece.  For me it became easy at that point, lower grade work like Spic N Span is lower grade work, end of story.  I stopped getting hung up on whether Saunders blew his nose on a piece to make it a Saunders piece.

Yes, I'm sure. Looking at the brush strokes and the way the person and the house is constructed through paint it's clearly his work. The house and man are loose because they are so tiny and because they are all about action. The guy is much like the woman on Bash.

Here are the pieces I think are NOT Saunders (with a few half and half exceptions). I left off a tiny few like Bleech because who really knows? With no characters it's tougher but even some of them you can see the packaging does not have the type of linework Saunders normally does. I think there are some can lids he did not do on pieces where he clearly did the rest of the work as well.

Sugarmess, Ultra Blight, Gloom, 8-Lives, No-Tips, 1A, Quake N Ache, Taster's Choke, Light N Dizzy,  Big Baddy, Plopsikle, Achoo, Hungry Jerk (hockey pucks), Pounds, Mold Rush, Piwi Blecch, Sugar Daffy, Fruit of the Tomb (painted everything EXCEPT the mummy), Blisterine, Supr Cigar Crisp, Peter Pain, Baby Runt, Snarlamint (may have painted the cig blood tips. If not then a decent copy job by someone else), Cut Rong, Whatmans, Jerkens, Bit-O-Money (Painted just the money bag area), Ditch Boy, Bar Kist, Sneer, Bum Bums, Big Muc, Medi-Quak, Hag N Hag, Caged, Big Banana, Leek, Soggy Babies, Oh Hairy, Blast Blue Ribbon, Hurtz Ketchup, Mex-Pax, Choke Up, Paid Killers (did not paint the gun at top. Not 100% about the bug), Jerkyfruits, Unpopular Mechanics, Easy Cuss-Words, Nooseweek, Crocked (I believe he did not paint stuff at top of magazine) National Spittoon, Rotsa Root

Last two series I would like to see 5x7 images but I'm suspicious of: Krummies, Cracked Lighter (the bug only), Bum & Mabel and Ultra Sheep. These may all be just styles to mimic something on the package or he just went minimal for effect. Regardless, they are all pretty weak work if they are his but I'm leaning towards them all being his.

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 4714
  • http://www.wackypackage.com/
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #137 on: December 08, 2010, 08:13:13 PM »
Yes, I'm sure. Looking at the brush strokes and the way the person and the house is constructed through paint it's clearly his work. The house and man are loose because they are so tiny and because they are all about action. The guy is much like the woman on Bash.

Here are the pieces I think are NOT Saunders (with a few half and half exceptions). I left off a tiny few like Bleech because who really knows? With no characters it's tougher but even some of them you can see the packaging does not have the type of linework Saunders normally does. I think there are some can lids he did not do on pieces where he clearly did the rest of the work as well.

Sugarmess, Ultra Blight, Gloom, 8-Lives, No-Tips, 1A, Quake N Ache, Taster's Choke, Light N Dizzy,  Big Baddy, Plopsikle, Achoo, Hungry Jerk (hockey pucks), Pounds, Mold Rush, Piwi Blecch, Sugar Daffy, Fruit of the Tomb (painted everything EXCEPT the mummy), Blisterine, Supr Cigar Crisp, Peter Pain, Baby Runt, Snarlamint (may have painted the cig blood tips. If not then a decent copy job by someone else), Cut Rong, Whatmans, Jerkens, Bit-O-Money (Painted just the money bag area), Ditch Boy, Bar Kist, Sneer, Bum Bums, Big Muc, Medi-Quak, Hag N Hag, Caged, Big Banana, Leek, Soggy Babies, Oh Hairy, Blast Blue Ribbon, Hurtz Ketchup, Mex-Pax, Choke Up, Paid Killers (did not paint the gun at top. Not 100% about the bug), Jerkyfruits, Unpopular Mechanics, Easy Cuss-Words, Nooseweek, Crocked (I believe he did not paint stuff at top of magazine) National Spittoon, Rotsa Root

Last two series I would like to see 5x7 images but I'm suspicious of: Krummies, Cracked Lighter (the bug only), Bum & Mabel and Ultra Sheep. These may all be just styles to mimic something on the package or he just went minimal for effect. Regardless, they are all pretty weak work if they are his but I'm leaning towards them all being his.
Are you disputing the idea that Norm touched up some pieces?  You seem to be projecting only "all or nothing" here and I don't believe that portrays how these were painted.
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!  Visit my website http://www.wackypackage.com/

Offline Plan 9

  • Posts: 1378
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #138 on: December 09, 2010, 05:42:27 AM »
You might do yourself well to stop thinking Wackys were Norm's best work. far from it, might be some of his worst work due to his being given zero time to create these.  Look at his Frankenstein sticker art or some of his Pulp covers and it is like Apples and Oranges.  I dare say you would be hard pressed to match a Norm Pulp cover.
I'm well aware that Wacky Packs are not Norm's best work. That's why I'm saying the simple approach he took can be replicated with adequate results or better.

Offline slamjim

  • Posts: 2054
  • OLDS11 in late 2023!
Re: Wacky Art Discussion
« Reply #139 on: December 09, 2010, 06:10:02 AM »
Are you disputing the idea that Norm touched up some pieces?  You seem to be projecting only "all or nothing" here and I don't believe that portrays how these were painted.

You must not have read through my post. I have multiple examples listed of Norm and another artist working on the same piece and also mention that I think certain pieces he did some of the packaging while another artist did the rest. He also did not do the airbrush stuff I believe. I believe that Spit N Spill is entirely his though (sans box air brushing and I guess lettering).
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 02:34:20 PM by slamjim »