Meet Madame X

In the previous post, I'd left entry number 10 off of my favorites list of Film Fun girls. So say hello to my number one Bolles girl. I can't remember when she hit the top of the charts but she's been there as long as I can remember, and I can state with confidence that there forever she will remain.

So why do I like her so? Let me count the ways. First, the pose is most unusual among Bolles covers. Of his over 500 magazine covers, only a handful were done using this from-the-back perspective. Second, both her expression and hair are unique. No blinding smile, squinting eyes or nimbus of flaming red hair for her. In fact her hair style is the most severe of any Bolles girl yet if you take a close look at the way he painted it, you'll notice it's not at all simple and the treatment of her hairline is actually asymmetric. It takes a lot of confidence and knowledge to do something like that and to know it will end up making her even more fetching. And talk about attractive; don't those huge olive gray eyes draw you into the picture?

So what else? I've written many times about Bolles' knowledge of color and how it works so well on the magazine stand, but look here. There's no color at all in her dress or shoes. Bolles once said that art editors liked any color as long as it was red and I wonder how he ever talked them into going for this scheme. Black is also difficult to print effectively and a lot of pulp magazines only ran covers in three colors, so there was no true black (I'll soon be doing a series on all the other black costumed covers Bolles did). What little accent color there is has been chosen very carefully. Notice how the color of his signature echoes the olive in her eyes and how the pink in her phosphate (or is it a shake?) plays off the color of her skin. This is Bolles minimalism at its best.

Where was I?...reason number four: gaze at those lovely hands. You've heard me go on and on about how Bolles loved drawing hands and used them to intensify compositions and as semiotic elements that serve both as signs and symbols. See how elongated her left hand is and how the mere fingertips of the right hand are exposed. The standard middle fingers touching pose has never been used more effectively. In this cover Bolles also featured what he considered was the most charged aspect of the female figure, and one that you likely would never have guessed...it's the shoulder. I learned this from a single quote buried in a letter Bolles wrote over 70 years ago and after reading it I could never look at Bolles girl quite the same way ever again. In this case the shoulder not only serves as the central compositional element in this painting but as with the hand, is noticeably elongated along with her upper arm. It's also worth pointing out that her choice of drink lends a whole different aspect to the painting compared to something like a flute of champagne or even a beer stein. Bolles completed a couple other covers where the girl was holding a soda shop drink and I have to wonder if it was some sort of inside story or symbolic meaning that is lost to a modern audience or perhaps just one of his more innocent visual puns.

...

Finally, some of you may have picked up on my lame intimation of a painting this one beckons to me, namely Sargent's painting of Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau, better known as Portrait of Madame X. Not that I'm proposing Bolles did this as a riff on Sargent but he knew his art and was certainly well aware of this painting's history and its unanticipated aftermath. The public reaction to its debut in Paris was so notorious that Gauteau was forced to withdraw from high society and Sargent gave up his goal of becoming a full-time portraitist. Bolles also suffered from his choice of subject. The late Reid Austin, who served as Alberto Vargas' personal assistant at Playboy and who wrote the definitive biographies of both Vargas and Petty, speculated that Bolles' opportunities in the field of illustration became limited because of his notoriety as the cover artist for Film Fun. We may admire the beauty and attractiveness of today's subject and his other Film Fun girls, but in their day they often provoked indignation from polite society. And so Bolles may well have paid a personal price for our enjoyment.

Originals I'd like to see

As you know from previous posts, the series of auctions of the Martignette collection of illustration art have put a number of Bolles originals back into circulation, unfortunately for collectors at record prices. But one positive side effect is that this enthusiasm for Bolles has also other brought other originals long held in private collections into the market, several of which were thought to be lost. The example above first showed up at a Heritage auction several years ago and is back at auction again. I had found this sketch of the image in a 1930s art catalog but knew nothing about this painting until it showed at Heritage. I'm almost positive it was never published. Speaking of Heritage, check out whose art they chose for the catalog cover to feature their upcoming auction.

So all this raises the question which burns (perennially!) in my mind: what other Bolles paintings are there to be found? It's tempting to hope there are a lot, Bolles produced over 500 magazine covers. The harsh reality is that it's unlikely that many more are around. With rare exception the work by created by commercial illustrators became the property of the publisher and there are many sad stories about how paintings were neglected or thrown out with the trash. Very few artists kept their original art and fewer yet retained the rights to it. Among the more notable exceptions was George Petty, who not only held on to all his originals for Esquire but also retained the rights to the images, which he aggressively remarketed. Like the majority of commercial illustrators Bolles signed away the rights to his work though he did manage to hold onto a fair number of his paintings including comprehensive sketches and proofs, but over the years they have been lost, given away or worse, stolen.


So if forced to choose, which 10 Film Fun paintings would I most wish were still around? I've been grappling with this and to be honest, I've gone back and forth on several and my final (for now) list includes works from three categories. These are the iconic images that every Bolles fan would die for, other works from what could be called the high-period of Bolles art running from 1932 to 1939, and his early work from the 1920s. The first group simply must include the Bolles motorcycle girl from 1934, and his deco infused masterpiece from 1935. Both of these images are all over the web and each has been reworked by Greg Theakston in the guise of Bettie Page. If for no other reason you'd have to choose these because they would be the most valuable to ever hit the commercial market.

Another painting to include in this group would be the Martini girl from 1941. She's been printed on book covers, drafted into beer ads, ironed on t-shirts and otherwise had a very busy second career. The original painting survived at least for a while, and a long while back I posted a photo of it in the Film Fun home office. In the second category of great but not iconic examples it would be an punishable offense to leave our favorite cowgirl out to pasture. I've written several entries over the months on my efforts to corral this painting from 1934. Though there have been several false sightings I am convinced she is out there somewhere waiting to be rounded up. And just to make things interesting below is a photo of her in the original, circa 1940. She's now the called the Whoopee girl and serves official mascot of the Pioneer Days rodeo held annually in Odgen, Utah.

Our cowgirl is joined by her sister from south of the border. This lovely senorita debuted in 1934 and soon appeared in blotters, calendars and even on a box of chocolates. Sadly in each case efforts were made to remove Enoch's signature. Clearly the inspiration for this cover was either a model or a photo, she has none of the more mannered aspects that Bolles sometimes is criticized for. The composition is a variant of the Bolles "L" and in my mind is the best example of the pose Bolles ever did. It's got everything, a fabulous composition, the snappy costume and hat, drapery and of course, great footwear.

Another must have would be the Can-Can girl from 1936. I just love the pose and all that crinoline, or whatever it should be properly called. As good as Bolles is at legs he really outdid himself with this painting. The pose is supposed to be based on a model and I have a photograph of her, but won't bother posting it. This is one of those covers where the model was merely a setup for Bolles' imagination.

And now we turn to an earlier era of Film Fun covers which highlight how Bolles' work stands in contrast from the work of other pinup artists because it so clearly presents both a personal and cultural timeline. As you move through the decades you can see the evolution of his technique (like it or not) and the emerging style of the era, which Bolles so clearly captured both in fashion and figure. By contrast, examine a Petty from the 1950s and you may notice that she has changed little from examples produced in the late 30's. He relies on the same technique, the poses are familiar and even the outfit could have been borrowed from one of his Esquire girls. This is not a criticism; Petty created a girl who was wildly popular and he would have been foolish to mess with success. The same holds when comparing Vargas' work between Esquire and Playboy though it must be said that Playboy allowed him far more latitude (maybe longitude describes it better!) in how he posed and dressed his girls though not all of it was at his discretion (he long resisted pressure for poses that revealed pubic hair).

In contrast, not only did Bolles painting style change over time, but the physical appearance of his girls did as well. It's ironic that he got out of the of the business at the very moment the term pinup came into use, because one could argue that he had more to do in codifying the genre than any other artist. But I digress, so turning to his work from the 1920s many would place this cover from 1928 at the top of their list. She's the total package. The next cover, from 1929 is shows that Bolles can do both naughty and nice. And today's final entry comes from 1924, one of Bolles best years for Film Fun. It's anything but a typical Bolles cover and I guess you could call this his peeved category, which includes a fair number of other covers. No copper is going to get away with pushing her around.

So that rounds out my wish list, or does it? Actually I'm one short and that cover is not only my top Film Fun, it's my favorite out of every Bolles I've seen. If you'd like to meet her stop back in a few days.

Out of the Ether

Be you a Bolles specialist or an omnivore of classic illustration art, you've likely feasted your eyes on the series of auctions of original illustration art at Heritage auctions over the past year from the Charles Martignette estate. For me its been both fabulous and frustrating because prices have skyrocketed, especially in the case of our man Bolles. The upside--even if you've been priced out of the market--is that all this interest in Bolles has brought some long lost treasures out of the closet, most of which have been consignments from other collectors.

...

The upcoming auction includes the 1931 Film Fun cover displayed here, and it's the only original I'm aware of from that year that survives. Yet as excited as I am to see the painting it is also a serious source of frustration. Every time a lost Bolles shows up on the market I can't help but wonder about its backstory; who owned it and what were the circumstances by which it was acquired? Each original I've managed to have photographed has a story behind it. Unfortunately many are scant on details, though one of the other Bolles for sale in the upcoming auction has a sticker on the stretcher that says "gift of Mr. and Mrs. Irwin Winsten, 1950", not that that means anything to me.

...

I've also posted the one other existing Film Fun painting of Bolles with a circus theme that I know about. The painting was done in 1935 and has its own story. It was once owned by, of all people, the girly artist Bill Ward. In a letter written to a friend he described buying the painting from an "old guy" at a flea market, recognizing it as a Bolles but not finding the signature until much later (it was tiny). He didn't say anything about the price he paid but I think it may have been around $150! Later in the letter Ward notes that Bolles could be considered the true pioneer of pinup, stating: "this guy precedes them all, before Petty, Vargas and the rest." And then he goes on to say that his very first published pinup, done at the age of 16 (!) appeared in of all magazines, an issue of Film Fun and I believe this its the final issue.

You may recall that a while back I posted a graphic that displayed surviving Film Fun paintings and am happy I'll have to update it. In fact it wouldn't bother me if I had to do this again and again. So, let's consider this: What if there were only 10 more Film Fun paintings to be found? If you could choose, which ones would they be? My own top ten list will be showing up in a post shortly. So what are your favorites?

A Bolles? I Certainly Soap So!

It may have been eight years ago when I received a most significant package from Theresa, Enoch's daughter. It was full of old ads that she had loaned to me, including several examples of what were once called car cards. These were advertising posters, printed on cardboard in standard dimensions that could be slotted one after another along the strip of space lying directly above the windows of trolley cars. From about 1900 until the 1950s they were ubiquitous not only in trolleys but also buses and subways. Enoch worked for the biggest advertising companies of the day and much of his work centered on the invariant format of car cards, which were sometimes scaled up to what in the trade was called 24 sheet ads, otherwise known as billboards.



Theresa was pretty certain that Enoch had done the lettering on this ad, and I concurred. It has some of his flourishes, most evident the tale preceding the letter P. But she was less sure about the charming image of the baby, and I also was reluctant to decide one way or another. Well at long last I finally managed to pick up my own copy of the card and have been poring over it since.



So is it a Bolles or not? The answer is I still don't know. First, it was done in either chalk or pastel. Bolles did the vast majority of his work in oil, though he did do one notable cover portrait in pastel, and I've seen examples of his work in a variety of other media. Second, the image has a gauzy look to it which is not at all like Bolles. As charming as the little fellow is, the technique is very different from the flat, precise application of color typical to Bolles. Yet, there is something about the treatment of the hair that harkens to Bolles, and the post with chin resting on shoulder is very typical to him. I've also seen a couple of other Bolles baby ads with more than a passing resemblance. Sorry for thinking out loud but for now all I can say is perhaps.



So let's close with a certainty. Here we have a terrific and very early Bolles from a 1917 issue of Judge. And it's not just a painting of any cute little girl, the subject is Enoch's daughter, Theresa. The story goes that he was sketching her in the kitchen just as you see, when Enoch's wife walks in, aghast at the mess. The only unanswered question, and one that Theresa couldn't answer, was if she had been responsible for the mess, or whether the culprit was Enoch.

Addendum: Just for the heck of it I'm adding one more Bolles baby, this from an ad that appeared in 1926. I think you'll see why I'm thinking our little fella in the Kirkman's ad is a Bolles.

Lá Fhéile Pádraig: Saint Patrick's Day

You've had to suffer a passel of silly celebrations on this site, but today we have a real one with a cover to match. There simply was no excuse for me to let Saint Patrick's day pass us by without sharing this fabulous Bolles cover from 1927. Sláinte!

The Fruits of Her Labor. It's Johnny Appleseed Day!

I'm back to using Bolles covers to celebrate national or not so national holidays, and here's a fun example from a 1930 issue of Spicy Stories published during a period when Bolles was conducting a lot of fruitful experiments cross pollinating compositions and themes. I'm not quite sure of the intended storyline but I bet you could come up with several convincing scenarios.


Many of Bolles' best covers for Spicy were done during this brief period. Unfortunately it didn't last long. By the end of 1930 Bolles was entering what might be called his bobble head phase, with the product being disconcertingly young looking girls. The most troublesome examples appeared on the covers of Spicy, largely given the content and underground market for the magazine. A couple years later his girls were reproportioned, heads smaller and other parts larger. Theories abound, but perhaps it was simply a change in diet.

P.S., I've felt obliged to add word verification for comments. This is not intended to in any way constrain feedback or comments, which I am always interested in. It's just that this blog has become a target of a lot of spam and junk comments. Sorry for the added step this will require.

Celebrating other blogs

Given the theme of this site, it's only fitting that from time to time we acknowledge the wonderful creations of other illustrators. And what better example to debut this feature than the new blog on female illustrators by the indefatigable Leif Peng of Today's Inspiration. Along with Dan Zimmer, the publisher of Illustration Magazine, nobody has done more in recent years to promote the golden age of illustration, particularly the many unheralded talents who labored in obscurity. Leif is not only a scholar of illustration he is a detective of the first rank. His new site features an entry on the highly regarded but enigmatic illustrator, Lucia Lerner. Not surprisingly, Leif has uncovered new information and insights about Lucia's life and work. I am sure you'll find her story as fascinating as I did.

...

I personally am grateful for this site because my mother was a professional illustrator; she started out doing interiors for Hallmark cards and later moved on to fashion art, all during an era when employment opportunities for women were constrained to a small number of fields deemed appropriate (her most interesting art job was as the court room artist for the Charley Starkweather trial!). So let's hear it for Leif and the pioneering women of Illustration.