DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Jinx, v. 1, issue 3, June 1942

Transcribe
Translate

Jinx, v. 1, issue 3, June 1942

Page 4

Symbolism in FANART by ART WIDNER JR

It seems to the writer that the field of symbolic art has been sadly neglected in fandom. It also seems that the cause of this neglect is the opinion held by fan artists and fans in general that symbolism belongs in a class with cubism, surrealism and other forms of "whacky" art.

This may or may not be so. But I deplore the accompanying attitude taken by the majority, that a piece of art must be complicated to be good. Or that it should employ an infinity of fine line work like Finlay, or the subtle color harmonies of Rogers, or some devious and difficult style far above the capabilities of an ordinary artist.

And symbolism! Horrors! They consider it the essence of childish scribbling, or at best, only glorified draftmanship.

Why must this be so? A depiction like Dollens' cover for #4 FANTASITE, Sayn's first on ECLIPSE, Knight's on #5 FANFARE, Jenkins' bacover for #3 ECLIPSE, or even the extremes represented by Reed Dawson on SARDONYX --are to my mind easily the equal, if not better than such drawings displaying fine technique, but lacking the co-ordination of detail, balance, proportion, perspective, and shading that goes to make up a good illustration, such as certain drawings by Wright, Bronson, Jenkins, and Marconette.

I've heard some symbolic work criticized thusly: "--But it's so simple! A child or anybody could put lines together like that with a compass and ruler."

I rather doubt that. As far as actual physical performance goes, yes -- but the capturing of a vague mental picture and imprisoning it on paper is what makes an artist, not mere copying ability. I've seen some people who could copy a Finlay with ease and precision, but who would be completely at sea if asked to draw a cat or a dog or even a passable-looking milk bottle solely from their imagination.

Of course, all artists, even Finlay, are copyists, relying on "morgues" and/or models. But there often comes a time when nothing they have on hand will fit, and they just have to dream it up from thin air.

But to get back to the central topic, I hope this article will have an effect on those artists and self-made art-critics who are prone to sneer at symbolism merely because it is simple. I'm not trying to prove that symbolic art is superior to any other type, but merely maintaining that it has a definite place in fanart, and when properly done, presents as pleasing an aspect as the best of Wright, Bronson, & Hunt.

Comments ON JINX NUMBER TWO:

Edward C. Connor: "And chum -- your declaration of W*A*R on Koenig has my whole-hearted approval. He should be ostracized."
4E: "JINX best in mailing! Most interesting contents, splendidly mimeod."
Joe Fortier: "Of the FAPA mailing, I'll say that I liked very little, but what I liked, -- I liked! Outstanding was JINX."
Jack F Speer: "What's the big idea of launching into this campaign against Koenig? You'll only make yourself unpopular and cause trouble in fandom which has gotten away from feuds with such great difficulty." ((Speer stinks. Incidentally, Jack, your "Lies and Mis-statements", among other things, doesn't exactly heal your relations with the Futurians, now does it?))
Francis T. Laney: "I liked "The Little People" in JINX about the best of any fan story I have read for months."
LeRoy Tackett: "Ha! A declaration of war. Give him hell, chum, give him hell. Raym's column was good. Articles on fan fiction were interesting; helpful."
LepreSHAWn: "War! I think I'm on your side in this. Fire away! I would have given my right arms (both of 'em!) if I could have had "The Little People" for the first issue of LEPRECHAUN. It would have been perfect, no less."
Fill Fann: "Splrfsk?" ((Ed. note: a most amazing comment, under the circumstances.))

Saving...

Symbolism in FANART by ART WIDNER JR It seems to the writer that the field of symbolic art has been sadly neglected in fandom. It also seems that the cause of this neglect is the opinion held by fan artists and fans in general that symbolism belongs in a class with cubism, surrealism and other forms of "whacky" art. This may or may not be so. But I deplore the accompanying attitude taken by the majority, that a piece of art must be complicated to be good. Or that it should employ an infinity of fine line work like Finlay, or the subtle color harmonies of Rogers, or some devious and difficult style far above the capabilities of an ordinary artist. And symbolism! Horrors! They consider it the essence of childish scribbling, or at best, only glorified draftmanship. Why must this be so? A depiction like Dollens' cover for #4 FANTASITE, Sayn's first on ECLIPSE, Knight's on #5 FANFARE, Jenkins' bacover for #3 ECLIPSE, or even the extremes represented by Reed Dawson on SARDONYX --are to my mind easily the equal, if not better than such drawings displaying fine technique, but lacking the co-ordination of detail, balance, proportion, perspective, and shading that goes to make up a good illustration, such as certain drawings by Wright, Bronson, Jenkins, and Marconette. I've heard some symbolic work criticized thusly: "--But it's so simple! A child or anybody could put lines together like that with a compass and ruler." I rather doubt that. As far as actual physical performance goes, yes -- but the capturing of a vague mental picture and imprisoning it on paper is what makes an artist, not mere copying ability. I've seen some people who could copy a Finlay with ease and precision, but who would be completely at sea if asked to draw a cat or a dog or even a passable-looking milk bottle solely from their imagination. Of course, all artists, even Finlay, are copyists, relying on "morgues" and/or models. But there often comes a time when nothing they have on hand will fit, and they just have to dream it up from thin air. But to get back to the central topic, I hope this article will have an effect on those artists and self-made art-critics who are prone to sneer at symbolism merely because it is simple. I'm not trying to prove that symbolic art is superior to any other type, but merely maintaining that it has a definite place in fanart, and when properly done, presents as pleasing an aspect as the best of Wright, Bronson, & Hunt. Comments ON JINX NUMBER TWO: Edward C. Connor: "And chum -- your declaration of W*A*R on Koenig has my whole-hearted approval. He should be ostracized." 4E: "JINX best in mailing! Most interesting contents, splendidly mimeod." Joe Fortier: "Of the FAPA mailing, I'll say that I liked very little, but what I liked, -- I liked! Outstanding was JINX." Jack F Speer: "What's the big idea of launching into this campaign against Koenig? You'll only make yourself unpopular and cause trouble in fandom which has gotten away from feuds with such great difficulty." ((Speer stinks. Incidentally, Jack, your "Lies and Mis-statements", among other things, doesn't exactly heal your relations with the Futurians, now does it?)) Francis T. Laney: "I liked "The Little People" in JINX about the best of any fan story I have read for months." LeRoy Tackett: "Ha! A declaration of war. Give him hell, chum, give him hell. Raym's column was good. Articles on fan fiction were interesting; helpful." LepreSHAWn: "War! I think I'm on your side in this. Fire away! I would have given my right arms (both of 'em!) if I could have had "The Little People" for the first issue of LEPRECHAUN. It would have been perfect, no less." Fill Fann: "Splrfsk?" ((Ed. note: a most amazing comment, under the circumstances.))