You are browsing the full text of the article: Humorous Art in 1935

 

 

Click here to go back to the list of articles for Volume: 1935 of Art Review A Survey of British Art In All Its Branches 1935

 

Art Review A Survey of British Art In All Its Branches 1935   1935    Page: 68
 
 Humorous Art in 1935
Profiles: click on name to see profile
 
Holman, William (Bill) [1903-1987. USA. Cartoonist]
Siggs, Lawrence 'Lawrie' Hector [1900-1972. UK. Illustrator/Cartoonist]
Footnotes:
The Schoolmaster Visits the Academy By Siggs By courtesy of the “Passing Show”

By Bill Holman By courtesy of the “ Passing Show”
Zoom:
 100% 200% Full Size
Brightness:
Contrast:
Saturation:
 
Humorous Art in 1935 By F. Gordon Roe

EVER since I started writing this review of humorous art, I have been plagued by a wish to explore the origin and distribution of jokes, with special reference to their pedigrees and to the recognition of hoary friends in gay new dresses. This desire, I hasten to observe, was not awakened by any specially marked evidences of antiquity in the current humour of 1935 though I am reminded that a few old favourites have made a brazen reappearance. For instance the time honoured quip about the husband asserting, from beneath the shelter of the bedstead, that he will be master in his own house, has been dished up for the 11th time, without a hint of the lengthy bibliography which, by now, it seems to need so badly. Have you never seen a dog which has been fed return quite brightly and pretend that it is another, unfed dog? Some of these revivals appeal to me like that. But there has been a recrudescence of the ‘amorous employer cum secretary’ jape which, to me, is positively nauseating. Of the various recensions of this piece of dubious ‘wit,’ not one has struck me as being anything but heartless, stupid and vulgar. To put it bluntly, they have even lacked a Rabelaisian appeal. And, once a jest of that sort ceases to be Rabelaisian, there is seldom any excuse for it.

Lapses from ‘taste,’ however, have not otherwise been so frequent as to call for special censure. (Remember that I deal with the humorous
Art Review A Survey of British Art In All Its Branches 1935   1935    Page: 69
 
 Humorous Art in 1935
Profiles: click on name to see profile
 
Ridgewell, William Leigh [1881-1937. UK. Illustrator/Cartoonist]
Sherwood, George Sherriff (G. S.) [1886-1958. UK. Illustrator/Cartoonist]
Footnotes:
"Stop ! Mr. Hopkins, we’re beginning to lose faith in you as a water diviner! " By G. S. Sherwood By courtesy of “ The Humorist ”

Semi-conscious Airman (falling into nudist camp) : " Gosh—heaven ! " By Brettell By courtesy of" London Opinion ”

"John, I have some gnus for you!' Anonymous By courtesy of “ Everybody’s Weekly ”

The Day’s Good Deed By courtesy of “ The Humorist ” By Ridgewell
Zoom:
 100% 200% Full Size
Brightness:
Contrast:
Saturation:
 
Art Review A Survey of British Art In All Its Branches 1935   1935    Page: 71
 
 Humorous Art in 1935
Profiles: click on name to see profile
 
Low, David [1891-1963. New Zealand/UK. Illustrator/Cartoonist]
Zoom:
 100% 200% Full Size
Brightness:
Contrast:
Saturation:
 
By courtesy of the “Evening Standard” Spring is Here By Low
Art Review A Survey of British Art In All Its Branches 1935   1935    Page: 72
 
 Humorous Art in 1935
Profiles: click on name to see profile
 
Cobb, Walter Herbert [1890-1955. UK. Illustrator/Cartoonist]
Footnotes:
The Animal Trainer’s Jubilee Turn By courtesy of the “ Passing Show ” By W. H. Cobb

"No, dammit, this isn't Regent 00903 ! "By Nesbit. By courtesy of the “ Bystander ”
Zoom:
 100% 200% Full Size
Brightness:
Contrast:
Saturation:
 
shy little fellow obliged to endure the banter of an interminable column of march. Some of the best of Ridgewell’s black and white work has appeared in The Humorist and London Opinion, his boy scout cartoon The Day's Good Deed, in the former magazine, being a delightful instance of skill in delineating contrasts of character and facial expression. Here is good-tempered farce, scarcely needing a title, and carried out in a ‘mock modest’ sort of technique perfectly harmonized with the conception.

Good farce, likewise, is supplied by G. S. Sherwood, whose comicalities appear alongside Ridgewell’s, and rival them in popularity. He, too, seems to owe a good deal to Bateman; but in Bill Holman’s intentional crudities we arrive at a type of humorous draughtsmanship which is at least partly American in tradition. I have in mind a titleless quip which Holman sent to the Passing Show. A ventriloquist lies asleep in bed; his mouth is wide open, but it is his dummy on a chair which is emitting the snores. For sheer boisterous fun, I give this whimsy full marks.

If Brettell’s airman (in London Opinion), murmuring: “Gosh—heaven!” as he falls slap into the midst of a nudist camp, had been drawn with a like ‘irresponsibility,’ it would have been one of the funniest drawings of the year. As it is, its realism is just sufficient to make one wince at the thought of tragedies of the air.

Ño such sense of disaster is felt when looking at the more Holmanish treatment of a somewhat similar theme, as drawn by H. Starkie for The Review of Reviews: “Well, it’s the last time they get me to go up in an aeroplane.” Not that I prefer Starkie’s drawing; I don’t. But it does show how fun can be kept clear of tragedy.

I confess that some of the jokes about falling airmen, nudist colonies and daring young men on the flying trapeze (of which last there has been a minor spate) strike me as being unnecessarily obvious. Yet, as we have seen, there is a species of ingenuous humour which certainly finds its mark.

Take, by way of another example, an item by Nesbitt in the Bystander. We are shown the deeps of the ocean, with all manner of fearsome monsters surrounding a diving sphere. Within it is glimpsed an angry explorer shouting into a telephone: “No, dammit, this isn’t Regent 00903!”

Or, again, there is the anonymous punster in Everybody’s Weekly, who, heedless of Belloc and the rest, gave us a sketch of a modest looking quadruped introducing a brand new family of six to her agitated lord, with the remark: “John, I have some gnus for you!”

Farce, however, can go hand in hand with psychological insight, as G. E. Studdy revealed in his Tatler cartoon Kilts sees Life—Master puts his Hat on. Master is going to take Kilts for a walk round the houses, and the dog is jumping for joy. He sees three little lamp posts sprouting on Master’s hat! I know of no other drawing in which an attempt to pictorialize a canine association of ideas has had so curiously subjective a quality as the basis of its burbling merriment.

Is it the lack of some such subjective element in Lawson Wood’s Gran’pop that denies me the pleasure of sharing in the general enthusiasm for the Sketch’s simian feature? Save in subsidiary details, Gran’pop is as realistic as anything in humorous art. With some slight but necessary alterations, he would serve as an illustration for a treatise on natural history. Let me insist that he—or, in this case, should I say ‘it ’? —is very well done in the typical Lawson Wood manner.

It borders, perhaps, on being an extraneous point, but I am sure that the topographical nature of Lee’s London Laughs must have taught Londoners quite a deal of their city.

All the same, the palm for the year goes to Low— a remarkable artist.