I got this a few times in my email box yesterday, but I’m still scratching my head over what the big deal is … earlier this month I (and others) posted about The New Yorker’s monthly caption contest featuring a Jack Kirby monster:
Now the New York Post has a story up about a university professor from Wisconsin calling the New Yorker out on swiping from the King:
Thomas Lammers, a professor at the University of Wisconsin in Oshkosh, said he thought the cartoon looked familiar.
He then dug out the original from his collection, which had the same monster as the New Yorker cartoon and the same background.
He said he e-mailed the magazine about the similarities two weeks ago, but never heard back. He said the editors “probably had no idea what the source” of the image was when they saw the cartoon, but the lack of any credit to Kirby in the piece stuck in his craw.
Jeff Trexler, which is where I first heard about the homage, comments on the contention:
My initial take still holds. PR folderol aside, those who needed to know that this was an homage knew that it was an homage, which is why the artist & key editors aren’t being sacked. If Lammers had done his homework, he’d have connected the dots–the image is one of the most famous of the genre; the artist is a respected cartoonist with record of comics homages, and the New Yorker’s graphics editorial has strong comics connections & is quite familiar with Kirby’s work.
I cannot speak for Mr. Kirby but I seriously doubt Jack would have considered this to be plagiarism. It’s one drawing put into a new, funny context. It’s also an obvious and famous drawing (I included it in my book) and it’s not like Mr. Bliss could have expected everyone would have thought it was his design. The joke in the visual is that it contrasts so totally with his own style.
On the other hand, Evanier points out that the New Yorker is guilty of something — not picking any funny caption finalists. (You’ll also note that they’ve added a “after Jack Kirby” credit under the image).
So what say you, comic fandom? Was the New Yorker in the wrong, or was the homage obvious enough for those familiar with the King’s work? And can you come up with a better caption? I’m sure you can.
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:10 am
Aside from not crediting Kirby (which has been added to the New Yorker website), this is no different than the thousands of times artists pay homage to other artists in comic strips. It’s an odd homage, especially since the average New Yorker reader likely doesn’t know the original cover (though at least many might know a Kirby drawing when they see it). But it’s fair use by a cartoonist.
But as for a caption, I got nothing.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
“…so, I force-fed him some random chemicals, locked him in an ancient sarcophagus with a radioactive isotope, and dumped him in the East River. Now? Relaxing with an insouciant Chianti.”
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/05/hunting-for-rabbits-again-vicar.html
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“Hello, Empire Club? I’m still waiting on my call-girl. I think her name was ‘Miss Thing’?”
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
“The view’s nice, and it’s monster adjacent.”
“Oh, here comes the Thai food now.”
“Jack, your monster is loose again.”
May 24th, 2008 at 12:57 am
“The art was completely unoriginal. Just rip offs of old comic books. Boring! Hell, yes I bought Lost Season 3.”