Site icon Gutternaut

Steve Ditko: An Objectively Like Him or Hate Him Artist

Steve Ditko at his most public recent picture

Steve Ditko is objectively one of the best artists to ever grace the pages of comics. He is the co-creator of one of the most recognizable superheroes, Spider-Man. Yet there’s a rather noticeable spectrum to his creations in terms of the philosophy Ditko lives by. Not only that, but his reclusive nature made it very hard for some people he actually interacts with. We’re going to look at what makes Ditko a great artist, but a morally questionable human being.

Steve Ditko: The Early Arts

Steve Ditko was born to a Slovakian-American family in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. In his youth, Ditko got into comics through his father’s fandom of newspaper strips. Yet it was the classic heroes of Batman and Will Eisner’s The Spirit that capture his attention. As a teenager in the WWII times, Ditko would go into military service on two fields. Once by making German plane models for civilians to identify and again as an official army man. Yet the only thing that Ditko discloses is a newspaper comic strip.

Ditko making use of his GI Bill goes to New York City’s School of Visual Arts to study under Batman artist Jerry Robinson. Ditko’s art certainly impressed Robinson who mentors the young artist. In Robinson’s words, Ditko at this point could work well with other writers and create his own stories. There’s a lot of enthusiasm this young man puts into his work, almost unable to stop himself. Which certainly didn’t stop when Ditko started being a professional artist. His first published work he wrote and drew is the romance story Paper Romance.

The Atlas Shrug

Ditko would associate with many artists who would eventually form what is today Marvel. Having first met Stan Lee through Jerry Robinson, Lee kept a spot open for Ditko. But not before Ditko finds himself in the studio of Jack Kirby. There he meets a man to influence his art style, Mort Meskin, co-creator of the original Western character Vigilante of Action Comics. Meskin’s artwork is both efficient, evocative, and makes clever use of geometry. This serves Ditko well in his time freelancing for Charlton Comics including co-creating Captain Atom. At least until tuberculosis hits.

Surely enough, after recovering Steve Ditko officially enters Marvel at its Atlas phase. Working with Stan, the pair quickly produce shorts in the Strange Tales line. These shorts were so popular Ditko and Stan would headline the Amazing Adventures line. Stan would provide a simple description and Ditko would draw it out in detail, serving as an early Marvel Method. These factors would all form what is essentially Ditko’s most famous creation.

The Marvel Web

Ditko can say this costume is his idea.

Spider-Man is a character people remember and treasure to this very day. Although as time would move on there are some contradictory elements to Lee and Ditko’s partnership over Spider-Man. Stan Lee admits that Ditko deserved credit over various aspects including the costume, co-creation of iconic villains, and even the details of mood and anxiety. However when it comes credit over Spider-Man’s creation, it was a disagreement over coming up with the idea versus developing it. Which depending on who you ask can lead to a lot of self-destructive debates. Unlike the wildly imaginative Doctor Strange who was Ditko’s idea.

From what records would suggest, in the last years of his Amazing Spider-Man comics, Steve Ditko would follow objectivism. Objectivist philosophies dictate that knowledge is from witnessing events to draw conclusions. This might’ve actually been what develops some Marvel characters including the Hulk. In the issue where Ditko does the art for The Incredible Hulk, it’s the first time where the Green Goliath transformation comes from emotions rather than the full moon. But it’s debatable whether this idea is his or Stan’s. Unfortunately due to Ditko insisting his viewpoints he eventually left Marvel for more creative freedoms.

Steve Ditko: His Ideal Spider-Man

Steve Ditko would make his most numerous contributions back at Charlton Comics. Starting by going back to Captain Atom, Ditko, Joe Gill, and David Kaler would expand on the mythology. One Captain Atom villain, the Ghost fits what objectivists might call a “Randian Villain”. The Ghost’s identity Alec Rois considered giving his inventions to the world but his past anxieties have him go down villainy. In Ditko’s own words self-neuroticism is a great evil that the ideal man must fight against. Which when comparing one of Ditko’s more optimistic creations at Charlton likely includes ideas he had for Spider-Man.

Peter Parker was a growing young man allowed to make mistakes because of his lack of experience. One could even say “with great power must come great responsibility” has objectivist implications in the struggle to be a better person. He was also a brilliant bio-chemist who developed his web fluid. Randian heroes are more often than not industrial leaders. Steve Ditko probably wanted Parker to get sick of working for J. Jonah Jameson who exploited Spider-Man for Daily Bugle headlines. Maybe he would even start an early version of Parker Industries while still being a superhero to finally overcome his financial woes. But with how things turn out, Ditko republishes these ideas into an initial Captain Atom guest character.

Charlton’s Objectivist

Artists familiar with the work of Steve Ditko finds similarities to both Peter Parker and the Ted Kord Blue Beetle. The most obvious is how physically similar Ted is to Peter Parker including his build and facial features. Then there’s the scarab that Ted uses, it resembles the spider emblem on Parker’s suit. Not to mention there’s Ted’s acrobatic movements. All of this suggests that Ted Kord as the Blue Beetle is what Ditko wanted Spider-Man to become. In this case, a successful self-confident man who barely has any worries. The most notable difference is when Beetle reveals his secret identity to a friend so it doesn’t cause her anguish. Unlike Peter who goes to great lengths to keep his identity hidden at all costs, often to his detriment.

Ted Kord is arguably the ideal objectivist for never compromising his ideals and values the people he loves. At the very least that’s what the public prefer an objectivist to be, because Steve Ditko’s ideal isn’t image friendly. On the other side of the spectrum is the Question.

…Needs A Little Less

This is much worse with Mr. A

Originally appearing as Blue Beetle’s guest, the Question is Ditko’s G-Rated take on an ideal hero. In this case, a character who deliberately knows right and wrong and choosing to act on it. This essentially means, acting on whatever means necessary. In his time as TV reporter Vic Sage, he surrounds himself in an environment dedicated to absolute truths. For Sage that means going out as the Question to thwart any crimes the police miss in their regular campaigns. Even then the morals and actions Sage employs are very morally questionable like when several businesses are gambling to stay afloat but Sage doesn’t care; nobody really cares about these implications. Keep in mind, Question is a watered down version of Ditko’s character Mr. A, but we’ll come back to him.

Steve Ditko: The Hawk

Steve Ditko would eventually set up shop at DC for a while often going back forth with them, Charlton, and smaller studios. His first creation at DC is the Creeper, a man charged with a crime he didn’t commit. So he puts on a strange costume to find the real criminal. Ditko seemed to have an opinion relating to flaws in the legal system, dating back to his work with the Question. When looking at an objectivist’s point-of-view, criminalizing someone based only on finding the most likely suspect is objectively wrong. Because why should anyone have to pay for someone else’s crime? Ditko even goes back to this idea through the original Shade, The Changing Man.

Way to sour a relationship.

But now for some of the more controversial aspects of Ditko. At DC, Steve Ditko co-creates the original Hawk and Dove with Steve Skeates. However in an interview with Skeates, he explains that Ditko used his influence to ensure that their run would go his way. In this case making the warlike Hawk the more appealing character by making Dove more passive. Ditko likely agreed with the Vietnam War drafts due to his military background and didn’t want anyone saying otherwise; even though this was at the expense at what was supposed to be a collaboration. Otherwise Ditko works well enough with others like Paul Levitz for Stalker and the alien prince Starman.

The Independent Ditko

Ever wonder what would happen if Squirrel Girl spoke to Ditko?

Ditko would go back to freelancing throughout the 80s. He even goes back to Marvel for some cash. Most of the time it was over license material like Godzilla and ROM Space Knight. Other times he creates his more optimistic characters like Speedball and Squirrel Girl. With everyone at Marvel trying to get more mature stories out like Death of Captain Marvel there was a bit of an imbalance. These two characters essentially represent the imagination and energy missing once people stop sweating the small stuff. Squirrel Girl in particular shows up Marvel’s worst villain Doctor Doom without much trouble despite her silly appearance and powers.

Even then Steve Ditko would try to be his own boss by using these jobs to publish characters he owns. They are often much like his most infamous creation Mr. A, extensions of his objectivist philosophies. Some like Static are like Mr. A in doing what they perceive to be good, even if this costs the hero his relationship with a love interest. Another, Missing Man is an invisible detective who really wasn’t close with his coworkers. In fact he barely did anything to the antagonists, each of the gangs got in each other’s way. If anything he reflects Ditko’s later life as a recluse.

Reclusion Thy Name Is Steve Ditko

After the 90s, Ditko retires from mainstream comics finding himself dissatisfied with how the industry is turning out. Ditko was a proponent of creator’s rights and ownership of characters yet has very few opportunities to reach a wider audience. Even the publisher where creators retain rights to their characters, Pacific Comics, goes out of business; not that Ditko wanted to stay long preferring his monochromatic art style. That and owning the rights still means answering to editors to sell stories; Ditko didn’t want his work tampered with any further. He also started to deny any interviews, wanting only his work to reflect his brand. Anybody on their own knows how difficult it can be without help, and Ditko didn’t really have many friends. Except for his former editor Robin Snyder who would serve as his publisher.

Experimental Ditko

Through Snyder, Ditko would publish the characters he owns including The Mocker. The Mocker is yet another objectivist piece; this time by telling a story through the texture of ink and pencil via the title character’s powers to dim lights. In it a district attorney is framed for a crime and stands against the contemplation of corruption even if it would benefit him. Ditko uses his art to punish his villains by using darkness to showcase their evil until it overwhelms them. All while a cop needing a hero gets brought into the light. On principle it’s a very well executed concept on comic art, the story’s characters save for the cop however are rather bland.

Steve Ditko… Beaten By Objectivism

I’m sorry, I can’t take this seriously.

The main flaw with Steve Ditko as a storyteller and as a person is how dead-set he is on his beliefs. Most of Ditko’s characters are at best two-dimensional, appealing mainly just to himself and ignoring constructive criticism. His ideal character Mr. A for example is a sociopath who openly mocks rehabilitation or risks. It certainly doesn’t help that the people against Mr. A are cartoonishly simple. Because to Ditko, there are no middle grounds or complications, just what people do. But that takes away context into people’s actions and setting. It doesn’t necessarily make things justified, but it does give more depth. Because without context there’s really no effort put into the characters. If anything Ditko’s depictions of objectivism are more like caricatures than characters.

Those Who Wish Well And Those Who Don’t

Before Steve Ditko died he spoke with very few people; most people didn’t even know what he looked like in his late years until a picture surfaced. Other than his brother, his nephews Steve and Mark Ditko, and Robin Snyder, the only recorded person to be in contact with him in modern times is Copra creator Michel Fiffe. In Fiffe’s words, Ditko wasn’t greedy or cultish like most objectivists tend to be, at least not the Atlas Shrugged variant. Just someone who lived on his own terms, expressing no interest in whatever he didn’t enjoy. He disliked collected editions for whatever reason; I like to think it’s because writing for trade holds modern comics back a bit.

But here’s the thing, after Ditko died the rights to his series went to his brother and nephews. They would use the opportunity to collect Steve’s Mr. A work in collected form, technically against his wishes. In Ditko’s own words whoever holds the rights is the one in the right. With that in mind, Steve Ditko was beaten by his own philosophy by someone upholding their own objectivism.

Closing Thoughts

I personally see Steve Ditko as the thing he tried to avoid becoming, a talented if tragically flawed man. I will admire the man for his passions and art skills that he drives to the limit. But in defiance to objectivism, I will do so with the context that he was preachingly opinionated. He upheld his philosophy so much, he was willing to upend someone else like Steve Skeates to get his point across. Neither was he willing to meet anybody halfway, it’s part of why he became a recluse. At the end of his life he died much like his inspiration, Ayn Rand, practically alone from heart failure. Afterwards his own philosophy bit him back by its own tragic flaw.

So please admire the man for his passions but don’t see him as a role model. If you need to tribute the man, do it in a way that brings up everything you like while criticizing everything else. In fact look at Ryan North’s Squirrel Girl series involving a corrupt college professor as an example.

What do you all think; does Steve Ditko still have a place among the greats despite his self-destructive flaws? Does his work have some valid points? Regardless thanks for coming and as always remember to look between the panels.

Exit mobile version