The R. F. Outcault Reader - vol. 7 no. 3

Addendum

As a test of my hypothesis that the art in McFadden's Flats was not redrawn but mechanically reproduced in some manner, I asked a few of my friends to look at Figure 1 and Figure 2 as reproduced on page 3 of this newsletter. I also asked them to consider the mechanism of how the reproduction occurred. The results have been interesting, and I thought that I should share them with you as an addendum

First, no one thought that the art in the book looked like it had been redrawn. The figures were simply too physically similar to attribute the results to even a very careful redrawing of the Sunday art for the book.

Second, the most common analysis was that the book art had been very carefully traced from the Sunday art. Reviewers felt that this might account for some of the tiny deviations that they found in comparing the two figures.

Third, my thesis that the art was mechanically reproduced in some fashion was a minority position but did attract some support. Further, the observed tiny deviations could also be explained with this position.

Now, let's inspect some of the deviations

First, the tornado in the top center left in Figure 1 has many fine lines and the bodies of two children in it. In Figure 2, it has only a few lines and no bodies. As these bodies extended above the tornado in the Sunday art, it is not surprising that they would be removed so the art would fit the allotted space. Regardless of how the art was reproduced, this area would have had to be retouched by hand and not look exactly like the original art.

Second, all three of the children with black stripes on their orange sleeves or vests in FIgure 1, do not show those stripes in Figure 2. This lack of transfer of dark detail shows up in the shoes, eyebrows, hair and elsewhere. Did this result from tracing the Sunday art, or did it result from using another plate that eliminated some of these details and/or only inked the gross outlines of the characters? It is important to note that either tracing or mechanical reproduction could have led to those same problems.

Third, the line across the top of the dog's back, the appearance of the clouds in the bottom center, and several other minor deviations look like they could be explained by the removal of color from the Sunday art. That is, after the removal of color, the black and white art needed some touching up to appear acceptable. Again, regardless of how the art was reproduced, the removal of color required some corrective measures that now manifest themselves as tiny discrepencies.

In summary, it appears that the Sunday art was reproduced for the book by some process other than having an artist redraw it. After asking several of my friends to analyze the Figures on page 3, the majority of them felt that the reproduction process probably focused on a careful tracing of the Sunday art. The minority position was that it was mechanically reproduced. Both positions would easily explain minor physical discrepancies.

I'd love to hear from you if you have any ideas on the origin of the book art. How do you think it was reproduced?

   

  [ previous page | return to newsletters ]
[ pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 ]

Richard D. Olson, Ph.D., 40 Infinity Drive, Poplarville, MS 39470-9006
(769) 717-4077
redoak2002@gmail.com


[ Home | Buy List | Gallery | History | Newsletters | Sales List | Society ]

 

  

 

 

Web Design and Hosting by
Fantastic Transcripts