Barks's Glittering Goldie paintings

[Lars Jensen]

Daniël van Eijmeren wrote:

>>> [Glittering Goldie] popped up in an awful lot of [Barks'] oil
>>> paintings. http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/ [...]
>>
>> I don't know much about Barks' oil paintings, but... Did he paint the
>> Goldie-oriented ones because he had a desire to use that character?
>> Or because the customers who ordered the paintings had asked for
>> Goldie to be included in them?
>
> I don't know. But if so, Barks could have objected to using her.
>
> Maybe a variation of this question would be:
> Did Barks create the Duck-oriented stories because he had a desire to
> use these characters? Or because the editor who ordered the stories
> had asked for the Ducks to be included in them?
>
> Barks has often said that he'd rather would have drawn humans instead
> of ducks. So, according to the point you seem to be making, most of
> Barks's comic book work should also be put aside as "commissioned
> work".
>
> Well, is that really what you meant? :-)

Let me repeat the discussion up until your posting: Katie suspected
Barks of liking Goldie more than would be obvious from the fact that he
used Goldie in his comics only once. She based this belief on the
existence of relatively many Goldie-themed oil paintings by Barks. My
question was: Did Barks use Goldie in these paintings because he wanted
to see her again -- or because he was asked to use her by the buyers who
commissioned the paintings? If it's the latter, then Barks' repeated use
of Goldie in paintings doesn't tell us how he actually felt about her --
only what the buyers wanted him to paint. Which would mean that we
cannot conclude anything from her appearances in Barks' paintings.

Your response to this is still puzzling me, some 19 hours after I first
read it. You extrapolate a number of silly, outlandish and extremist
beliefs from my posting, imply strongly that this is what I believe and
then end your posting with a smiley.

I don't know whether you're having fun, want to make me angry or (for
whatever reason) are trying to make me look bad on a public message
board by suggesting I have the above opinions. No matter, so far you've
accomplished Objective 2.

Anyway, just in case your posting was meant to be serious:

1. Yes, Barks could have refused to use Goldie in his paintings, but
that's irrelevant to my posting.

2. Your idea of how Disney comics are produced (the editor asks the
writer to come up with a story -- and somehow stick the Ducks into the
action) is baffling, coming from somebody I know communicates with a
number of comics creators. Do you actually believe this is how writers
work?!

3. There is a world of difference between buyers commissioning a
painting and editors commissioning a story. They can't be compared the
way you do.

So, to sum up: No, I don't believe what you imply I believe. And, for
the future, don't try to suggest I have certain opinions, when you don't
actually know I have them.

Lars