Evanier uses a double chronology for "MAD Art," with the chapters detailing the general process by which artists join the "MAD" gang of idiots and end up producing their mini-comic masterpieces in discrete stages, while each chapter provides profiles of over five dozen artists with examples of their work, from the infamous advertising parodies, and classic front (and black) covers to the interior art, including dozens of rare and previously unseen preliminary sketches and photographs. That means the first chapter, representing the fabled time when "MAD" was a E.C. comic book, looks at the legendary artist Harvey Kurtzman, Jack Davis, Will Elder, John Severin, and Wallace Wood. There is certainly something to be said for any list of artists that end up with Wally Wood being on the bottom. Kurtzman gets special credit for being the writer-editor and occasional artist for the all 23 of the comic book issues and the first five of "MAD" as a magazine, while Davis is the premier caricature artist of our time.

With each chapter revealing another wave of fan favorites, you get a sense for how the "MAD" stable of artists was created. The second stage sees Dave Berg, Bob Clarke, Mort Drucker, Frank Kelly Freas, Don Martin, and Norman Mingo being added to the ranks, while chapter three looks at Sergio Aragones, Paul Coker Jr., Harry North, Antonio Prohias, Jack Rickard, and Angelo Torres. These are the artists that defined "MAD" when I was a mere lad, and even if you do not recognize the name, you will recognize the artwork (I actually made it almost all the way to 2004 before I realized that Antonio Prohias did all the Spy vs. Spy bits when I was a kid).

However, after that point we are up to the next generation of "MAD" artists, which means those who have been working on the magazine since I moved on up to "The National Lampoon" and then abandoned written satire for weekly doses of "Saturday Night Live." So Tom Bunk, John Caldwell, Don "Duck" Edwing, Sam Viviano, Drew Friedman, and Roberto Parada were all news to me. But, to be fair, how many people have actually been reading "MAD" magazine for a half-century? If the younger generation gets introduced to Harvey Kurtzman, then that justifies this entire 304-page book with its black-and-white illustrations and two 16-page color sections. As for me, my favorite of the "new" artists is Richard Williams, with his updating of Norman Rockwell for the 90's (The cast of the first "Survivor" doing the Thanksgiving dinner "Freedom From Want" bit).

For those who are interested in finding out about the favorite pieces, stylistic influence, and references the veteran "MAD" contributors used to create their art, "MAD Art" is going to be a treat. If it tries the patience, not to mention the memory, of those who have no clue who "Flesh Garden" and the "Lone Stranger" are parodies of, then that is their problem. It is about time somebody took the artists of "MAD" magazine seriously.


The Tepid Mad   July 4, 2003
 4 out of 4 found this review helpful

Everyone has nostalgic affection for what Mad once was, and the art generated for it in its heyday has been endlessly recycled. The selections for this book are nice, but the reproductions are tiny. There are relatively few of the gorgeous full color paintings that graced its pages in the '50s and '60s, and no roughs or preliminary sketches to give any insight into the process.

The writing is perky and lightweight, like a testamonial speech for a retiring employee, with a little biographical information on each artist, where he was schooled, what a gifted cartoonist, how respected by his peers, what a funny guy, etc. Here and there are hints at the pressures that must have come into play in the production of the magazine, but propriety and niceness always win out, and the real story is glossed over with well-worn Madisms like, "...mainly because...!" and other breezy, hand-me-down catchphrases. With no glimpse into the creative life behind the vacant gaze of Alfred E. Neuman, you might as well buy a Mad reprint from the days when it used to parody superficial fluff like this book.

The only interesting thing about "Mad Art" is its inclusion of the newer artists who have appeared since most of us stopped reading the magazine. These newcomers are technically rather good (if unoriginal), and it's important to see what's being done today, even though Mad hasn't been funny for a decade and a half.


You'll laugh out loud as you relive your youth!   June 17, 2003
 3 out of 3 found this review helpful

If the names Dave Berg, Don Martin and Al Jaffee mean anything
to you, then you'll want to read MAD ART by Harvey
Kurtzman . . . I loved it, but then again, I rarely missed an
issue of MAD when I was a kid . . . and I can still "see" (in
my mind) the drawings of Berg, Martin and Jaffee, along with
the rest of the "Usual Gang of Idiots," to quote the magazine's
masthead.

MAD ART features interviews with many of MAD's veteran
contributors about their favorite pieces, as well as what influenced
them in their work . . . but best of all, this official guides through
MAD history also includes a treasury of advertising parodies,
classic front and back covers, and interior art . . . I found
myself laughing out loud, reliving what gave me joy when
I was younger . . . and thinking that someday soon, as a
guilty pleasure, I'm going to have to break down and purchase
a current copy to see if it is still as funny as I remembered.

Obviously, it is difficult to try to present art in this text-based
newsletter, but I'll try by describing just a few of the hilarious
illustrations:

In one Don Martin strip, written by Duck Edwing, a guy sees a
sign that says "Pay Toll Fifty Feet" . . . he pulls up and as the
collector puts his hand out, he reaches back in his trunk and gives
him fifty feet!

"Footnotes to History," illustrated by Paul Coker, Jr. and written
by Paul Peter Porgest, has illustrations featuring just feet with
such lines as:
"Adolph . . . can't you walk like the other boys?"
"One of these days, David, you're going to hurt somebody with
that slingshot."
"Would you mind very much using a drop cloth, Michelangelo?"
"Orville! Wilbur! Come down here this instant!"

And "Your pet has reached blissful retirement when," illustrated
and written by Paul Peter Porges, shows:
your parrot making special menu requests (and some lukewarm
milk);
your doborman giving limp handshakes;
your piranha losing its bite; and
your parakeet having to walk up its perch.

I now find myself looking forward to a follow-up book, featuring
interviews with the magazine's great writers and their classic pieces.


All I Need To Know About The Sixties I Learned From MAD!   November 21, 2003
 3 out of 5 found this review helpful

What a rush of nostalgia this compilation of MAD art brings back! I first started reading MAD as a late pre-teen, in the early Seventies. As I collected issues, I came into possession of some older copies, from which I got my first impressions of the lately concluded Sixties. The early MAD, freshly spawned from EC Comics back when William Gaines had a buzzcut, didn't interest me. But once he let his hair down and assembled his famous Usual Gang Of Idiots, the resulting humor and satire was a surefire hit with smart-alecky adolescent boys like me.

This collection presents a couple of pages of biography on each artist, along with a few panels of their work. I remembered most all of them from my era, but some were rediscoveries for me. Sergio Aragones, Jack Davis, Paul Coker, Jr., Al Jaffee with his goony inventions, Dave Berg--to name them is to summon to mind a favorite riff in the greatest cartooning ensemble ever assembled. Possibly the most poignant was the sad case of Don Martin, who drew those jug-headed characters in those "One Fine Day" episodes. Through illness and unspecified other problems, he was forced into an unwanted collaboration with the equally talented Duck Edwing, and then decamped altogether to an imitator, before passing away not too long ago.

If you are not familiar with MAD, then you certainly can't be expected to have all these fond memories. The social satire is dated in a retrospective like this, too. But coming to the collection cold, you'll still find something to chuckle at, surely. With so much talent on display, it'd be impossible not to.


too small to read   October 14, 2003
 2 out of 3 found this review helpful

I could not believe that a book with such obvious
interest to many would be printed in the form it was.
The print is so small in the cartoons that have been
reproduced that one needs a magnifying glass to read.

And I am not exagerrating. I would rate this book
as a 5 if it were not published with such unreadable print.