"Who is this brilliant young man, now universally hailed as Van Gogh 2.0 and The New Picasso?"
Digging up new and interesting voices in comics can get pretty random once you go beyond the obvious places like Mome and Kramers Ergot and the better criticism websites. With webcomics and minicomics and a few new publishers making distracted grabs at an increasingly theoretical "mainstream" every year, the discerning fan is ripe to be overwhelmed. Often it isn't until something cool is staring you in face that you remember: oh yeah, sometimes you just
find things...
Case in point: Dave Sim's bizarre featurette on "photo-primitive" artist Robin Barnard in Glamourpuss #12. It's typical for Sim to venture far afield in the "magazine parody" sections of his comic (my guess is that the weirdness of those segments allow him to exercise his manic and often viciously satirical side without too much of it bleeding over into his ongoing, authoritative study of photorealistic comics art), but this thing was ridiculous. Where once had lain witty barbs tossed with glib delivery at the shallowest fashion mags was now stupendously overcooked fake-Artforum prose, championing the merits of the visual world's new "Prime Innovator", a deceptively modest post-modernist who was already gathering a tremendous amount of heat with Those Who Know. The artist, of course, was Barnard, and it all sounds somewhat acceptable until you see his drawings, which look like this.

Though the stuff is hardly Alex Raymond, I think there's an interesting power to it. Despite the inaccuracy of the lines and the occasionally freakish distortions (look at those teeth!), it's still apparent that these are supposed to be pretty women. There's little actual ugliness or even deconstruction to Barnard's picture-making; his line is interesting in its uniform, almost unwavering thickness, and he's able to capture the way the women in the pictures he works from actually look with a minimum of anything resembling craft. Indeed, the lack of craft is probably the most interesting thing about Barnard's photo tracings -- where typical comics art finds a level of detail it's comfortable with depicting and then sticks solidly to it (whether it's the minimum of Chester Gould shapes-'n'-shadows to the maximum of Moebius linework-tapestries), Barnard is appealingly all over the place. The clusters of pen strokes for the hair are an entirely different kind of detail from the tortuously rendered macrame of the shoulder strap. Contrast it all with a blank face evoked only by childlike feature-shapes and you've got something pretty interesting.
Of course, Barnard's actual drawings probably aren't the most interesting thing about his work. It's always exciting when artists take the work of other artists not as mere influences or inspirations, but as entire
genres to work in. From Joe Casey and Tom Scioli's serialized Kirby-baths in Godland to Captain Britain/Halo Jones-era Alan Moore's obsessive refinement of Chris Claremont, there's a magnetic, intellectual pull to art that is primarily interested in exploring boundaries set forth by someone else's natural style. It's something that comes off as derivative in, say, music or prose, but the nature of the comic is something different. Where a million bands have blurred themselves out in replicating the exact guitar sounds of Sonic Youth (for example), in comics there's some kind of inexplicable, bloody-minded merit to comics work that finds its
main aesthetic interest in Bernard Krigstein subdivisons, or Gary Panter ratty lines, or whatever else.
But if narrowing the focus to explicate one thing done by one artist is a worthwhile experiment in comics, it's still a pretty unique mind that picks out Dave Sim's Glamourpuss for its devotionals. The book itself is largely an attempt to explore one "single thing", that being Al Williamson-style photorealistic women. And the plot only thickens due to the utter devotion Williamson himself had to perfectly capturing an exact replica of the Alex Raymond style. Such is an industry which is little policed by enemies of derivative art-making, sure. But more interestingly, such is a medium where derivation is more often than not the path to an individual voice, or at least individual work.
What, then, is one to make of Barnard's self-published debut comic, a slick, oversized pamphlet called Glamour, Not! that mimics Sim's book right down to the cover layout. It's a copy of a copy of a copy, but it can't be faulted for that; seeing an utterly unschooled, primitive artist such as Barnard have a go at the exact form used by a consummate craftsman like Sim (one which
I opined even Sim only got away with
because of his level of formal artistic skill) is much too interesting a proposition. It's interesting in the execution, too: Barnard is faithful to Sim's template all the way through, from the layout of the credits page to the farcical letters in the back of the book. Rather than more highbrow photorealism scholarship, though, Barnard takes his readers through an increasingly elaborate series of metafictional jokes featuring the characters (and traced panels) from George & Lynn, an airheaded "sexy gal" strip by Conrad Frost and Josep Gual that runs in Rupert Murdoch's British tabloid The Sun.
It's an interesting, often genuinely funny meeting of artist and content -- Barnard's debased-Sim format and bad-good style set to work on a modern, schlocky newspaper comic as opposed to the (still occasionally schlocky) sophistry that Sim spends his book studying. For a regular reader of Glamourpuss, the experience is utterly bizarre, so self-referential that threatens to fold over on itself like a slinky. Grant Morrison's got nothing on this! The non-George & Lynn bits of the comic are taken up by a heartfelt, illustrated paean to Glamourpuss, which is where it gets really interesting. The text is good as a recommendation for a book more people should be reading, and in its pure belief in what Sim's doing with his comic it also gives a good insight into Barnard the artist. But it's the accompanying illustrations that provide the kicker. They're Barnard's phototracings of a few of Sim's phototracings, and seeing how far the images wander from their originals in this protracted, artistic game of Chinese whispers is fascinating. Perhaps it's too much to mention that the photos Sim did his originals from were the same photos Barnard traced from on the drawings seen in Glamourpuss #12.

The effect of seeing this in Glamour, Not! is unlike anything I've gotten from comics. I'm living in the hope that hope someone will do a knockoff/homage/parody of Barnard's comic just so we can see their tracings of these images that have already gone through so much. I want to see these pictures degrading forever. Imagine if a page of Kirby pencils was passed to inkers from Joe Sinnott to Mike Royer to Vince Colletta -- on and on, down through Kirbyites like Scioli and Erik Larsen, down until it was being traced and traced by random SVA students, each new set of inks going over the old until it wasn't
images at all anymore, just random things a mass of different people had made, just a block of
art. Barnard's unique inspiration carries this mad, glorious impulse further than I've seen anyone else go, and I applaud him for it. Glamour, Not! is hardcore conceptual comics
in excelsis. May Barnard continue to change whatever he puts his hands to.
DTU Interview: Robin Barnard
MS: As someone with a fairly unique aesthetic, why comics? What does this medium offer that draws you in?RB: I have always loved comics and was introduced to them at a very early age –- the first thing I drew that was anything more than the generic house with a rainbow was a comic strip.
The comic that started me off was an issue of Marvel UK's Star Wars Weekly from 1978 which had Archie Goodwin & Carmine Infantino on Star Wars, Chris Claremont, John Byrne & Terry Austin on Starlord, and Stan Lee and Gene Colan on Tales of the Watcher. Starting off with such a high quality work ignited an interest that still burns brightly to this day. It is rare that there is a comic that I do not like and have read thousands of titles over the years.
What I like most about making a comic, especially a self-published one, is really there are no rules or limits, you do not have to worry about budget restraints when imaging something. As long as you can draw it, then it can be done – also the flexibility of the form is just incredible. You can do anything you can put your mind to –- it's really illustrated fiction we are talking about here!
MS: What are your favorite comics or kinds of comics? I'm especially interested in who you see as having influenced your own work. (Yes, besides Dave Sim.)RB: My favorite comics vary quite a lot, but I have a number of titles that clearly stay way at the top of my personal favorites –- V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, the Phoenix Saga, Walt Simonson’s Thor, John Byrne’s Fantastic Four, Frank Miller's Daredevil, anything by Barry Windsor-Smith –- in short I really appreciate anything that puts real time, care, and attention into making the experience something much more than the sum of its parts.
In terms of comics that influence my drawings, I have not been consciously looking or thinking "aha, I like the way this was done maybe I will try that" – at least not until recently as I had never done anything other than tracings from UK Glamour magazine. But I have picked up on some things from doing Glamour, Not! and some of the special pieces that followed it and this is informing what I do now. So I guess there’s some Conrad and Gual, and possibly some of the Dave Sim doing Al Williamson. But definitely less of the latter –- I am not that good!
MS: What comics do you like that are coming out now? What's special, what's worthy of notice?RB: At the moment I read so many titles is hard to keep track of them all, but I like the current run on Unknown Solider that’s going -– that’s a great mesh of art and storytelling. Creepy from Dark Horse has been pretty good so far, solid storytelling there – of course its all been about Glamourpuss for me for so long that I tend to forget other comics!
MS: What made you so interested in Glamourpuss? What is it about that particular book that speaks to you?
RB: Dave Sim himself introduced me to Glamourpuss. I actually sent him a letter about Cerebus Archive #1, about his admission of guilt to having done “The Beavers” and I just causally mentioned at the end of the letter that I would give Glamourpuss a try. To my surprise I got an issue sent back to me from Dave himself –- that started off an ongoing dialogue that still carries on to this day.
That issue started my love affair with Glamourpuss, as it was such a unique and unusual title -- a combination of elements which you would think would not work not only working but actually redefining the medium! I like anything that stretches the boundaries of what a comic can be, as I said before I think no limits should be the rule –- so seeing such a dynamically creative work and so brilliantly illustrated it was hard not to fall in love with Glamourpuss, really. The fact it had humor in it as well takes it to another level, I love anything with humor in it -- as becomes apparently self-evident from any conversation I have!
It was Glamourpuss that started me off drawing again for the first time for longer than I can remember, so I have actually been at this for less than a year!
MS: What goals or aims made you decide to create Glamour, Not!?RB: Ah Glamour, Not! Well, originally this was just going to be a giveaway product for a signing of Glamourpuss a UK comic book shop convinced me to do, I just wanted to show something to kind of get people interested in Glamourpuss really.
When I was about a week into drawing it, episode 18 of Cerebus TV was on –- and Dave Sim decided to feature Glamourpuss #12, which Dave had decided to include a lot of my tracings in and declare me as being “the master of photo-primitivism”. Well... after that I decided I needed to expand the scope of what I was doing to at least include the Cerebus forum and this did of course change the direction of what I was doing as well. This was directly responsible for my tribute to Glamourpuss in Glamour, Not!
From that point I wanted also for Glamour, Not! to be a way to get Cerebus forum members interested in sending some feedback for Cerebus TV by giving it to them free. I also wanted it to be a birthday present for Dave himself and a way of thanking a number of individuals who had helped me out in one way or another (Hi Max, Oliver, Margaret!). Beyond this I see anything as being a bonus.
Also I have said that I would be happy if one person actually likes what I have done. I guess there’s no accounting for taste!
MS: For readers unfamiliar with George & Lynn, what about it made you choose it to parody/homage?George and Lynn -– Well I knew with Glamour, Not! I wanted to parody Glamourpuss #12 –- as a way of kind of saying thanks for the inclusion of my drawings (which was beyond my wildest dreams!) but all I knew about this at the time for sure was the Russ Heath cover with my name, and some judiciously covered nudity by means of a caption.

I knew whatever I wanted to do, it would have to be something approaching a photorealism newspaper strip. But instead of being a serious study of this as you get in Glamourpuss, I decided to invert it and have humor (that also means what would be the parody section is actually serious).
So the newspaper strip had to have humor, photo-realism and references to scantily-clad women as a matter of course and it had to be something that I was familiar with to be able to do anything half decent. I grew up reading the Sun Newspaper so George & Lynn seemed a natural fit.
There was also a large element of “domestic burlesque” in George & Lynn which I knew would go down well even if the other parts of it would not!
I would also say that at least in-story George and Lynn is quintessentially British as well, which helped a lot.
Finally I chose George and Lynn as it was so flexible and a rich source of existing material, I purposely took panels with captions I liked out of context to make a story!
MS: Where do you see Glamour, Not! fitting in the wider comics landscape? Are there any writers or artists (again, besides Sim) whose work you think is similar to your own?RB: That’s not something I have thought about –- I am not particularly good at being objective about my own work. I have not thought that anyone would appreciate Glamour, Not! on a wider scale than it has gone so far –- I mean in honesty it is the first real comic that I had done that is actually complete.
If by some random chance it does actually go wider, I would be more surprised than anyone else!
As for anyone’s work who is similar to my own, I have been given a number of different comparisons by other people, but none of these are ones I am aware of myself. I tend to think "well, me is me" really. My own opinions of what I have done can be scathing and are shown word for word in Glamourpuss #12, so I tend to not to compare anyone else to me as I am still trying to figure this out -– I keep saying maybe one day I might get good! Like I said, no good at being objective –- sorry!
I take the line "well, if someone likes what I have done that’s good, but I more than understand if not." I am still practicing really. To put this in context someone once said my work was horrifying and scary and asked for it to be removed!
MS: What's next for you -- more comics? More Glamourpuss features? Anything you want to tease?
RB: Well, I am still working through the 2000 bad drawings anyone has to do before they can decide if they are any good or not! At the moment I have just returned back to doing photos from Glamour magazine again, as you have seen [
picture at top of article -- MS].
In terms of what is going to be out there with my work coming up –- Glamourpuss #14 features a cover in part inspired by my drawing #145 and I am told that possibly some more of my drawings might turn up in a Glamourpuss letters page.
I think I may be very lucky in the future along similar lines –- but I honestly don’t know, I think I have been lucky enough already!
Oh, and I sent you a drawing –- maybe you can put it up here for everyone to see?

[
John Byrne's Superman, by Robin Barnard]
But by and large I will keep on going, doing 2 drawings a day, as I am only just past 200 and still have another 5 years to go on the 2000!
If Glamour, Not! is well received I may well make doing a comic an annual event. I think it’s good to switch mediums and try something else for a change as this then informs everything else you do.
If anyone actually likes something I do I have no hesitation in sharing it freely and openly and I would love to be able to get other people trying their hand at this. At least at the level I am at it's not as complicated or difficult as some people might think!
I treat what I am doing as relaxing and a bit of fun first. If I actually do anything good, that’s just a bonus. Combine that with a regular production schedule and you will improve naturally!
[
Bulletproof thanks to Robin Barnard for his time and patience in providing me with this interview. You can see more of Barnard's work at the Cerebus forum, or in Glamourpuss #12, available in finer comic shops.]