The Wolverton Bible

I remember the issues of Mad I'd read in the library in middle school. I first read them because they were popular amongst the middle school crowd. I grew to read them only as a last resort when my mother was particularly late in picking me up. This was because I found the magazine repulsive, both in subject matter and, more importantly, the art. And now I think I know who I have to thank for this art. (I say 'I think' because I'm working off of memory and haven't touched a single page of Mad in almost a decade.)

So, Basil Wolverton. The Wolverton Bible.
http://www.amazon.com/Wolverton-Bible-Basil/dp/156097964X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
"Basil Wolverton created the most famous MAD magazine cover, the May 1954 “Beautiful Girl of the Month—Reads ‘MAD.’” Ludicrously grotesque, it’s typical of the humorous cartooning that was Wolverton’s principal livelihood. Humor wasn’t the self-taught artist’s only mode, however. From 1952 to 1974, he illustrated the Bible for publications of the Radio (later Worldwide) Church of God, a broadcast-based ministry whose eccentric beliefs crop up in the drawings. His son Monte prepared this complete collection of his church-related work, including some typically funny stuff done for the student publications of the church’s Bible schools. Wolverton used a lot of contrasting pattern work to compensate for his essentially stiff, flat, untutored style, meticulously filling in fields of dots, lines, and, after he upgraded his pens, hatchwork. Wolverton’s faces have only a handful of types and expressions, and he couldn’t do foreshortening. His Book of Revelation drawings, full of grotesque horror, are more impressive than the others; but altogether his religious art demonstrates that he was kind of the Douanier Rousseau, the Grandma Moses, of comics. --Ray Olson"

Copied word for word from Amazon, which in turn seems to be taken from Booklist, so I don't have to. Now that's out of the way. Well, not just because I can be lazy, but also because I agree with what Mr. Olson has written.
In short, Wolverton's stuff is ugly. What can I say. I don't like it.
The man drew Lena the world's ugliest woman, sure. My problem is that the world's ugliest woman became his modus operandi.
It's lumpy, static, stale. What Olson has said, that his work is "essentially stiff, flat, untutored" among other things, is true. It doesn't strike me as art that's driven through talent and inspiration, but rather patience and perspiration. For many of his drawings, if you take away the hundreds and thousands of little lines and scratches of shading and cross-hatching expose, you get some rather unremarkable skeletons and figures that are supported by the details, the filling. Take that away from Wolverton's work and you get, in my opinion, mediocrity. But then that seems to be what his art is about, the time he's put into the scratches on the figures and not the figures themselves. But without the figures we won't have the lumpy, saggy quality of his people. Or maybe not, since on pages 42, 94, and 95 of the Bible we see where he has abandoned the confinement of outline and rendered shapes using only cross-hatching. And those figures still seem lumpy enough. Surprisingly enough, those three drawings are successes in my opinion, which tells me that Wolverton does occasionally have his moments. Like on page 263, we again have the foreground and background. But the foreground is uncharacteristically unscratched, showing in stark relief simple, crude lines of a block (not lumpy!) city and some ferns. What is remarkable here is the background, a vast galaxy revealed to the reader. Now here is an undeniable success on Wolverton's part. Here I witnessed what is his god's glory, or possibly a moment of inspiration for Wolverton. Page 29, where a disappointed God decides to smite the world. And hey, page 23, showing Eve, who doesn't actually look literally like ass as his women tend to do. I do think I love page 23. It is exquisite. The markings on the tree, even the leaves look energetic. If only Wolverton managed to maintain this energy throughout the book.

Page 23, a rare Wolverton woman who doesn't look like ass. And those leaves!

Unfortunately, I can't help but laugh at the illustration on the bottom of page 95 of Egyptians supposedly in despair. I don't find Wolverton's humor actually funny, but I did find his rinse, repeat style of people in the foreground wailing with others doing their own thing in the background to get so repetitive as to be funny. Actually, I think I'd enjoy this Bible much more if someone took the time to replace the captions with something... funnier, absurd even.
Take the king on page 141: "Who's got the stones!" followed by 159: "Sonofabitch, STONES!"and finally, 142: "WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF THOSE!"
Page 265: It is the year 1974. And yep, still running. Some things never change.
I don't know. While going through the book it's sort of entered so repetitive it's funny territory for me. Someone ought to take the time to recompile the book, and three of the chapters should be titled: "Stone Walls: From Conception to Destruction", "Keep on Runnin'", and "Ooooohhhh!!!".

Ultimately, with Basil Wolverton's art I can't shake the feeling I'm looking at an unsuccessful emulation of some great woodcuts and engravings, where even the crossmarks and lines are interesting to look at. I don't get the same feeling as when I'm looking at something carved by Dürer. With Dürer's work, even though it can get so busy with the lines it's distracting, the shading itself is a marvel to study.

Now those are some sexy lines. Dürer even included a crazy man.

I see in Wolverton's art a determination and a stubbornness. It's something I see as necessary when lacking in training. I don't want to mention talent since that itself is a concept I'm not quite sure I can define. But with the amount of work such doggedness produces, there's bound to be something good there. And in general there's a place for styles like his. Not everything needs to be pretty, and one illustrator Wolverton's lumpiness reminded me of is Richard Corben. I wish Corben weren't doing Hellboy. Corben's ugly faces work for Hellboy's horror setting, but they're still ugly.
In the end, I can respect at the very least the passion I see in Basil Wolverton's drawings, but does that mean I have to like it?
Ha ha ha. Hell no.