There is an old saying that A Man is His Own Worst Critic, and this was certainly true of Carl Barks when he spoke about his duck work. In interviews he would express his vexation that his drawings or his paintings had not come out to his full satisfaction. Thoroughly strange to learn from a man whom most of us regard as perfect in his field, but undoubtedly Barks meant what he said - he was a perfectionist.
Barks was not hesitant with his criticism when asked about his fellow creators in the comic book world, either. Many of them were his idols even before he started his duck work, and many of them inspired him later on. Below you are presented to a listing of Barks' critiques on some of the most well known comic book creators and you will find that he has both positive as well as negative statements to offer. The listing does not include artists from the Disney universe.

 

 

 

 


Krazy Kat


Tarzan


Flash Gordon


Steve Canyon


Prince Valiant


Little Nemo


Popeye


Snuffy Smith

SPECIFIC COMIC BOOK CREATORS

George Herriman (Krazy Kat):
That was something I could never understand, the humor of Krazy Kat. But there were some funny-looking characters. I used to read it just to see the crazy characters. You could get a laugh out of it.

Roy Crane (Buz Sawyer):
I think my drawing style is a mixture of the styles of Gottfredson and Roy Crane and a whole bunch of these comic book and comic strip artists. Occasionally there was some part of a story in which there was a panel that lent itself to a Roy Crane method of making the backgrounds - of course his style of drawing was nothing like the style of drawing the ducks.

Burne Hogarth (Tarzan):
I loved Hogarth's Tarzan. There was a style of drawing that had quite a bit of Disney in it ... but his stuff was too anatomical. He didn't have the soul, the soul that can show through the anatomy.

Alex Raymond (Flash Gordon):
There was a man who could combine craftsmanship with emotions and all the gimmicks that went into a good adventure strip. He was a master.
I could just sit there and look at the drawings and be inspired. Of course, I couldn't use those drawings very much in doing the duck stories later on, except for the background or the atmosphere of the places the ducks had to go. That inspired me to do some nice drawings in there, and it helped to put those duck stories over and make them popular. Because they appeared to go to real places.

Frank King (Gasoline Alley):
Have you noticed how many of those characters are sub-morons? The old guy with the donkey cart, the guy with the funny cap and the girl chambermaid? All of that! They are just sub-morons! The reader automatically feels superior to those characters. It gives the reader a good feeling. I think that that's one of the tricks of writing. I never thought about it until I was analyzing that Gasoline Alley one time, trying to think: Why do I pick that thing up day after day and read it? I don't like those characters. I just despise them! Yet I keep on reading about them...

Milton Caniff (Steve Canyon):
I liked his drawing up to a point. It seemed to me he began putting too much ink into his stuff after he reached a certain point in which his composition should have been clear. He started putting much more ink into it. I would just lose track of where the characters were. I wish he'd put in a long-shot once in a while, so I could tell where these people are. You're lost in all this ink.

Hal Foster (Prince Valiant):
I could follow Prince Valiant - it aroused quite a bit of sympathy in me. Prince Valiant was beautifully illustrated and each panel was a work of art. I don't think that I could have come up with that, because I didn't have the artistic background, the learning, you might say, to draw that well. I would have had to work on something much simpler.

Fred Opper (Happy Hooligan):
I never liked Happy Hooligan as a character. I liked some of the characters that he was in contact with much better. Happy Hooligan seemed to me to be a person who didn't do anything good in the world. He just blundered around. Generally I would have had sympathy for the straight guy, not for the supposed clown who was the main character of the strip.

Winsor McCay (Little Nemo):
I most clearly remember Winsor McCay's Little Nemo - wonderful drawings!
Winsor McCay was certainly one of the influences in my life, because Little Nemo was one of the first comic strips I can remember. It used to be published in the San Francisco Examiner, which we got on our farm. Those characters had a great influence on me. I wasn't so much an admirer of the drawings as I was of the story construction. And my favorite of the characters was old Doctor Pill, because he seemed to be a good guy. He was protective, and trying to do the best he could, while the clown-like guy with the cigar was just fouling things up and making trouble and leading the kids astray.

Elzie Segar (Popeye):
I loved the stories, but I didn't care much for the drawings. The stories were very funny.
Segar's drawing style: It was the simplicity of it. He didn't have to put in a thousand lines to show what his characters were doing; he just kept them very simple and wide open so that you could know what every character was doing and what he was going to do. What I was getting out of Segar was a method of putting into my stories the way he put action and anticipation and all those things into his stories.

COMIC BOOKS IN GENERAL

On early inspirational comics in general:
I was influenced by art techniques from Billy de Beck (Snuffy Smith) to Hal Foster (Prince Valiant). I'd idolize one style awhile, then worship another. For story formats, I got most training by analyzing Thimble Theater and the Popeye scripts.
The newspaper comic strips I liked as a teenager were mostly from the San Francisco papers: Happy Hooligan, Katzenjammer Kids, Bringing Up Father, Old Doc Yak, Little Nemo.
Elzie Segar's Popeye and other strips had a strong influence on my art style and humor creation.
I will say that Happy Hooligan wasn't among my favorites, but Segar and his early Thimble Theater, and cartoonists you wouldn't recognize, who drew for the San Francisco Examiner. Back in those years, in the early 1920s and before that time, the San Francisco Examiner had a Sunday section of humour and cartoons, and, really, it was just a big magazine folder. It was full of cartoonists' stuff. Some of those guys were marvellous cartoonists. Those fellows were real draftsmen in pen and ink - they all had distinctive styles.

On contemporary weird comics and superheroes:
The comic books of the 'golden years' of the 40s, 50s, and 60s were all escapist reading in my opinion. The kids who read Superman, Plastic Man, and Tales from the Crypt were all taking a trip. The fad for that form of escape is now almost defunct. Comics have been replaced by pot. I am pleased that I was able to be of some value to the young trippers of those years.
As for Superman and all those type of stories, they were quite an artificial thing. They did have a little bit of the human element in them, where Superman was trying to keep his identity secret from Lois Lane. In most of the fighting and the menaces and all, it was just complete fabrication. It didn't seem to me to have much depth.
I began seeing the first comic books come along, Superman and some of those, and I would read those and think, well, these are lousy stories.

The pictures are courtesy of
www.comicsinfo.dk

 

 


http://www.cbarks.dk/THECRITICISM.htm   Date 2006-08-18