Shaqui saying that the SWORD typeface was COMPACTA in a recent blog comment got me thinking about the graphics people and printers utilised by Century 21 Toys. So here's a question for you graphic artists out there - rather than using artists, is it possible that where the art already existed (as a transparency - see Steve Holland below?), such as the Robert McCall and Ed Valigursky images, that C21 simply asked their printer (whoever that might have been?) to create the box art or would a graphic artist have had to be involved to set up the box art and compacta lettering etc? In short, is it possible that no artist was needed at all on some of the SWORD box art and the printer/techies did the whole job?
It's worth reminding ourselves what Look and Learn Historian Steve Holland observed in the McCall piece I did recently:
"I doubt if Fleetway ever saw the original artwork. They were probably sent a transparency and then had one of their regular writers or in-house staff write a new piece around the artwork. I've no idea who wrote the article -- which is definitely different to the text that appeared in Life -- although if I were to take a stab in the dark I'd guess at David LeRoi, who was the science editor of Look & Learn for a few years from 1961.As for how they came to be associated with Project SWORD, I've no idea. Fleetway would not be in the picture. You could almost imagine someone kept a scrapbook of nice space art that they dipped into every time they needed a spaceship of space scene. You'll know better than I whether the box art is a copy or not... but whether the box art was done by an artist commissioned directly by the toy manufacturers or the job was put in the hands of an agency I've no idea. The latter I would guess, making the name of the artist almost impossible to know"
Paul, if you compare the box art with the Valigurski and McCall paintings, then it's obvious the box art are completely different paintings. If the Valigurski and McCall paintings had been used, then -every- brush stroke should have been identical. As it is, the Booster Rocket sports a different colour scheme and the background for the Nuclear Ferry is completely different in detail. Not to mention the absence of the cutaways, the Sword markings, the difference in painting style etc etc.
ReplyDeleteBoth Valigurski and McCall were very successful artists, doubtless having very good management too. If C21 would have wanted to use their paintings, they would have had to negociate a license for using the artwork, based on purpose (packaging) and edition run (number of packs). Which in the case of these two esteemed artists would've been hefty indeed and translate into a considerable markup per unit (less so for a magazine printed in the tens of thousands, because the license costs get spread over many more copies than would be the case with toy boxes).
Then there's the fact that the artwork would have to have been changed (no cutaways, different markings etc) which would also have entailed a much higher cost (assuming Valigurski and McCall would even consent to making such alterations).
So... far far cheaper to get an unknown local artist from a commercial studio, and pay the time it takes for him/her to knock off a rough copy of far less quality, and with the desired differences, and including reproduction rights as well (if they even bothered about those, this being a blatant rip-off from the very beginning).
Hope that helps
--
Paul
Paul, having looked into the history of SWORD for the last 15 years I have found very little to be obvious I'm afraid. Your idea of an 'unknown local artist from a commercial studio' does fit with Steve Holland's 'agency' idea. I suppose it could have been an outfit based anywhere but perhaps one near to the C21 Toys offices makes more sense. It's hard to imagine that all the C21 Toys artwork was done in this way - Thunderbirds, Joe 90 etc. I'm still leaning towards them having some staff artists, like TV21 did, doing some of the work. But who is the crux of the question.
ReplyDeleteIllustrators are usually freelance. TV21 did have a studio, but it was mainly doing the more 'mundane' artworking chores under art editors Dennis Hooper and Roger Perry. I would imagine, but cannot speak from direct knowledge, a similar set-up existed at C21 Toys - the box designs are too regimented to be just knocked together by printers.
ReplyDeleteEither studio would have commissioned new illustrations, sourced to an agency - TV21 used Temple, and Bardon (mainly European artists) - who had many top comic artists and illustrators on their books, not just 'local unknowns' - a term I find somewhat ignorant and insulting to the talent they usually represented!
Given the scale of Century 21 at its height - and SWORD came about towards the end of its reign, its more than likely that there would be a team of dedicated artists/designers to work up the packaging and associated advertising. Its plain that the artwork on the ferry and cape canaveral boxes is not McCall, but its a very close facsimile thereof. The earlier SWORD toys such as Task Force and Booster rocket, d have artwork on the boxes which is slightly less accomplished, so it is probable that these were created by freelance artists, but the later items are of much higher quality.
ReplyDeleteIts also conceivable that some of the illustrations may have been made in the far east, directly from a combination of the toy itself and from examples provided by C21 such as the Time Life Booster Rocket and the Space Glider. If you look at these illustrations they do tend to look a little 'naive' compared to the closely plagiarised paintings of 'Rollout' and 'Ferry'.
Whatever and whoever it was, don't give up searching, Woodsy. The facts might yet come to light one day.
ReplyDeleteI published an article (two or three posts in a row?) on Hong Kong takes on Assault Landings, and the HK boys managed to produce about 5 versions of the original artwork!!
ReplyDeleteOnce you've stolen the product Idea, Stolen the Product design and stolen the product name/markings, stealing the artwork?....seems rude not to!
Erm.., just to reassure Shaqui: I didn't intend an insult to any of the C21 box artists. With "local unknown" I'd hoped to describe somebody who worked for a studio (or indeed freelance) and didn't receive a mention for his work on the final product. Outside of magazines or album/CD covers, it's rare for an individual artist to be credited by name. Occasionally the studio might get a mention on commercial printwork (if only in a document id code) but not the artist(s). And being a 'commercial artist' myself, I can assure you I know of what I speak. :)
ReplyDeleteBest
--
Paul
Fair enough Paul, but as we are 'both' commercial graphic artists, we should both know better.
ReplyDeleteEven 'TV21' has its fair share of 'unknowns' who turned out to be famous. The Don Lawrence fan club/website were ignorant of the fact he illustrated some of the Project SWORD stories until I pointed it out to them. Ditto the advert art for the Corgi James Bond Lunar Buggy.
Frank Bellamy was revealed to be the artist who drew 'From the world of the Daleks...' on the back of the 'Dalek's Death Ray' ice lolly wrappers, which I had in my collection for years, and Norman Boyd was able to reveal after some investigation: http://frankbellamy.co.uk/notes/walls.htm I could kick myself for not recognising the style, even with the mushy duotone repro. And did the storyboards for the animated 'Space:1999' ice lolly. I simply didn't think he do such stuff but we all have to earn a crust...
Everyone has to start somewhere Paul - we both did. So be a bit kinder or fairer. When it comes to 'knocking off' a copy of an illustration, you also have to consider what reference illustrators are given. I'm sure many of you have seen comic art that looks similar to previous material - sometimes it is all the artist, sitting at his/her desk, has to work with, on a deadline and possibly on that much of an earner too...
More than fair enough, Shaqui. And fwiw, I too have had to plagiarise the odd idea in my time. Client insisted, no patience with my objections, grin and bear it...
ReplyDeleteOther than that, those are some fabulous revelations you made there. I am (once again) -seriously- impressed!
All the very best
--
Paul