As you might have gleaned, I consider myself somewhat of an authority on the guy's work, so imagine my surprise this afternoon, while trolling for other possible purchases that I can ill afford, when I discovered this little beauty:
Uh, wait. Or was it this one?
You tell me.
Posts
Is the lighter colored one the real one?
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure the second one is the real one. The first one looks rather stiff and overlabored compared to the second one. Frazetta's work is so fluid and dynamic.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to say the bottom one after comparing the crosshatch work on the guy's legs
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone. I think the original is the second one. The hair has a more natural flow and it all looks a little less stiff.
ReplyDeleteme too, seems like there's more spontaneity in the second one
ReplyDeleteAt first I was tempted to say that the second one looked fake to me. But upon closer scrutiny I think the first one is fake. There are some extra lines in the second one which I don't think a faker would put there considering the labour he/she has put into following the lines so closely to the original.
ReplyDeleteNow I don't know anything about Frazetta's sketching style but certain lines (in the clouds in particular) in the second one seem more spontaneous compared to the first one.
Let us know the right answer! :D
Peter De Seve, duped?? Hm. This is certainly a case. I believe I'm with the others on this one in saying that it be the latter that is the authentic one.
ReplyDeletethe second one is the good one, just look at this fast line, close to the signature... Wich one you owe peter?
ReplyDeleteIMO, Definitely 2nd one is real, the toning is elegant a subtle. the first feel harsh.
ReplyDeleteI would say the second one looks real. It is definitely not easy to tell though.
ReplyDeleteSecond is the real. But amazing the copy.
ReplyDeleteyeah.. I think the 2nd one is real.. but.. hmm... Tell us the real answer, Peter! :D
ReplyDeleteYep! The second one is the real McCoy. You can tell in the top one where they hesitated in trying to copy the crude border & broad cross hatching in the background. As well as the paper condition. The real authentic work shows appropriate aging.
ReplyDeleteI'm no expert on anatomy, but I saw something funny. THE LEGS. 2nd one is spreading more and steady on the rock while the 1st one needs to go to the gym to build up his right thigh. THE CHEST, 2nd one is proudly sticking out his chest, like he's breathing deeply in the air. 1st one, is just standing straight. THE THUMB, I can tell 2nd one's left thumb is a thumb, the 1st one just puts too much ink on the thumb and nail, hence breaking the structure.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's the funny part: the Biceps muscle on the man's right arm. The copier couldn't figure out why the line had a steep bulge. He, as well as me, would probably draw the arc thin light line instead, finally, he/me gave up, the compromise is the smooth wavy outline which completely lost the strength. (PS. that's a lousy job on defining how the bracer's over the wrist.) Same goes man's left leg, especially the muscles on Tibia. One is a powerful compressing muscle, the other is a swelling lump. (PS. that's an very odd shape knee on the copy) My point is: Great artist see force under the anatomy, they masterfully exaggerate it by shaping the lines. The amateur try to follow the contour. By doing that, he weakens the power and balance.
Thank you for the excellent lesson. Without the real one, I wouldn't tell what really makes the master piece master. Took me a while to climb over a great wall to post the replies. But it worths it.
I'm gonna play echo, and say it's definitely the second one.
ReplyDeletethe bottom one. Frank thins his ink with water. You can see it on the tip of the hair. And the signature is nice and straight. he had great penmanship. I say had, because he signed a book of mine after his stoke and it was on a diagonal... poor guy. He can draw just as well with the left hand though.
ReplyDelete-Craig
Craig Elliott Gallery
Yah the second drawing is pretty masterful.
ReplyDeleteInteresting observations Sara. The difference between these drawings offers great insight into what makes Frank better then the rest of us.
In an interesting bit of synchronicity a columnist in The Toronto Star had a whole story on Frazetta and crime in today's paper.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/article/764755--love-letters-frank-frazetta
Second one is the original. Anatomically it feels more solid as Sara said. The variation in ink opacity is also a bit of a giveaway. There's also more tonal range in the hatching on the second one (like under the neck and in the torso), the first one simply makes things black and as a result looks more flat. The range of thin and thick lines in the second one also gives it a much more dynamic and three dimensional look.
ReplyDeleteNumber 2,compare the autographs-the first is not fluid enough
ReplyDeleteNumber 2 the bone structure on the knee of number one is all futzed up and doesn't have the correct sense of weight or flesh to form
ReplyDeleteput them side by side and you can see the fake (first one) was traced. Amazing how resourceful forgers can be!
ReplyDeleteYou can also tell by the lines in front of the figure, i.e. the stone between that guys feet. Those sketchy, kinda wobbly lines is smth you see in a lot of other frazetta sketches as well. These lines show thought process here, whereas in the first one,...you see it? they dont show much thought lol.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the outline of those rocks. Frazetta almost never treats outlines like that. Those scribbly broken lines only show up in his recent work, that is 2000+.. sketches. So, 2nd one is the real fritz, obviously. :)
افضل شركة مكافحة حشرات
ReplyDeleteشركة تنظيف شقق بالطائف
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض
ReplyDeleteشركة تنظيف بالدمام
شركة تنظيف الطائف
شركة تنظيف بمكة
شركة تنظيف بتبوك