Pulp Art

I started on a book yesterday called "Pulp Art: Original Cover Paintings for the Great American Pulp Magazines" by Robert Lesser, which includes full page reproductions of the oil paintings created to be pulp cover art.  The basic thesis of the book is that pulp covers are legitimate art.  The opening chapter is all about populist art and how that is a right of the American people because of a specific prohibition in the Constituion against noble titles, the bearers of whom are often forceful arbiters of taste.  So pulp art is populist art, and just as much art as the contents of any art museum in the world.

When pulp art was being produced, most of the artists creating it did not believe that at all, let alone the public or the art elite.  Many saw it as common at best, and certainly a commodity, and many artists were actively ashamed to have created it.  For the most part you couldn't give the original oil paintings away.  A lot of it is very sensational, especially as the industry matured and the subject matter of the magazines sometimes reached into the frontiers of popular taste in search of new audiences. Sensational enough that Mayor LaGuardia of New York spoke out against some of the trends, and newsstand owners would tear some of the covers off because they didn't want them on their stands. There was a gangster line that had two covers printed for different markets so as to not offend the wrong sensibilities in the wrong places - that could be dangerous.  Some pulps were sold under the counter as much for the cover art as for the contents.  The thing is, it took more and more eye-catching, i.e. extreme, covers to stand out on a newsstand, which is how most pulps sold. And it seemed to be the common concensus that the cover is what sold a pulp.

"Pulp Art" gives examples of the covers from certain genres of pulp magazines and then explains how to "read" them and gives background information on the artist and their techniques.  Really interesting. 

The art from some of the more sensational lines is really disturbing, however. From what I gather, the stories never lived up (down?) to the art, which is a good thing, but the art was enough to leave me with weird dreams, especially with the interpretations.  Even though I can see the author's point that "on the edge" art is still art, I can see why some of it was censored, especially in the '30s and '40s and especially in public around children.

But I loved the science fiction covers - bright colors, often stylized, filled with the wonder of the future. The interior illustrations are in black & white and filled with detail and exciting technology and science.  Many of the illustrations are optimistic, and a real spur to the imagination. This is the art that set the classic SF esthetic. And the best artists were obviously having fun with it and perhaps doing it partially out of love. (They sure didn't get paid very much!)  This blog has a few articles filled with such art. I'd buy some of these magazines for the art - it put a smile on my face and a sense of wonder in my heart.

I enjoyed this book for the full-page, full-color reproductions of the paintings, and the essays written by folks involved in the pulps and their art.  I also valued the insights into the artists, and, no matter how disturbing they may have personally been, the art. It did get a little preachy in places, but still interesting over all. Again the SF section is lovely. I recommend this book, especially if you have a stronger stomach than I do.