tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701969497419397329.post4128093780069610508..comments2023-08-09T02:31:51.387-07:00Comments on Enoch Bolles: Pluck of the Irish, à la BollesBolles Fan 1http://www.blogger.com/profile/15269014178929622136noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701969497419397329.post-90779043227436286192009-03-21T20:31:00.000-07:002009-03-21T20:31:00.000-07:00I'm posting some comments from GH, who really know...I'm posting some comments from GH, who really knows his stuff, and I'll interject some responses.<BR/>Jack<BR/>GH in Quotes<BR/>"What struck me about your comments (and this blog is really wonderful) is the idea that Bolles ever saw a copy of any proof sheet. I knew Dick Sprang, the Batman comic book artist who wrote a lot of stuff without credit for Film Fun. His first wife was a photographer who shot a lot of the starlets who appeared in the magazine- that was done in house with the exception of the material they got for free. This was a low end mag- basically a grindshop- folks produced copy and art- all work for hire. This may well have been a mob front operation like some of the other places Bolles worked. They had no artistic rights. If it sold mags it was great. The editor would tell you what art sold mags. But seeing proofs- that was highly unlikely."<BR/>JR: Actually Bolles was an exception as I have found proofs he had stashed away in boxes, along with comps and other sketches of his magazine and advertising art.<BR/><BR/>"The editors were idiots. All they looked at were the bottom line. Grind it out. Fortunately Bolles art sold mags (and frankly continues to sell stuff). His artistic vision and the public (to the extent there was a public as these were essentially soft core mags by 1930’s sensibilities) merged completely. He sold mags. So he was incredibly successful in terms of attaining what he wanted to do with art and commercially unsuccessful as he sold all rights.<BR/>My wife, (who does great portraits) points out that his anatomy is all wrong- the paintings are cartoons (and she has looked at one on my wall for 20years)."<BR/>JR: I would instead call Bolles a mannerist, as he could do work that was nearly photorealistic (even some of his later Film Funs). But of course this is my own biased perspective.<BR/><BR/>"Gibson even in his decline was seen by a lot more readers than Bolles likewise Flagg. However neither is remembered much today- don’t mix up history with contemporary taste."<BR/>JR: Good point. What I should have said was that they had far farther to fall (out of the public favor) that Bolles could have. And I do think Bolles flexibility in style has something to do with the current interest in his work.Jack Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06003755708951409832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701969497419397329.post-45351961404906016682009-03-18T21:39:00.000-07:002009-03-18T21:39:00.000-07:00That's a great idea with the signatures, as Bolles...That's a great idea with the signatures, as Bolles loved to tinker with his. I only wish there were some interviews. I have only one photo of him at work and it was an article on his commercial advertising. Not a word on all his magazine covers (of course there's still hope).Jack Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06003755708951409832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701969497419397329.post-37699436822353902742009-03-18T18:51:00.000-07:002009-03-18T18:51:00.000-07:00Nice post, Jack. Thanks for the good work. Inter...Nice post, Jack. Thanks for the good work. Interesting signature too. I wonder if you could work up a post on all of EB's diff signatures. Also, are you aware of any film of him? Any newsreels, or interviews?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com