Barks's Glittering Goldie paintings

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

LARS JENSEN to me, 12-09-2003:

> 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.

Okay, I see.

> 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.

You're taking my email way too hard. So hard that it gets offensive and 
painful. Please stop that.

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

I was having fun, *and* I was serious. So are most of my emails.

> 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?!

What is the difference with reality, according to you? 

Here are some of my thoughts on this subect: 
Egmont would not accept a Disney story without Disney characters. Egmont 
does ask artists to come up with stories involving Disney characters. And 
I think that they at least do have a desire for certain artists handling 
certain characters. Would Egmont be happy if artists like William Van Horn, 
Daan jippes, and Don Rosa decide to make Bucky Bug stories, instead of Duck 
stories?

(I'm just taking Egmont as an example. I could also mention the Dutch 
editor and artists like Mau Heymans and Bas Heymans. Etc.)

> 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.

For the painting "Pleasure in the Treasure" (72-02), Barks could paint 
anything he wanted. Still, the painting was commissioned. I think this is 
comparable with how Western requested stories from Barks. For example, in 
the early 1950s, when Western found out that WDC-comics were more popular 
with Barks stories in it, Barks was put on the job of creating ten-pagers 
again. In a manner of speaking, Barks was just an employee. Maybe a very 
important employee, but still Western decided what Barks would do and what 
he would not do. Just look at the butchered Barks-stories, for example. 
("Trick or Treat", "Back to the Klondike", "The Madcap Mariner", "Mythtic 
Mystery", etc.)

--- Daniël

"Please, please, mister McDuck! Don't take my washing machine!
I need it to support my husband and three son-in-laws!"
(Which Barks story?)