• About Percival Henry

Percival Henry: The Fantastic Four and more

~ Blogging the Fantastic Four issue by issue (plus whatever else grabs my attention)

Percival Henry: The Fantastic Four and more

Category Archives: Art History March Madness

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015: The Champion

07 Tuesday Apr 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art, art history, sports

bather-with-beach-ball-1932

And the winner is … Pablo Picasso. Perhaps to the surprise of no one, Picasso  – the master of modernism, the caliph of cubism – dominated Piet Mondrian with 68 percent of the vote, just as he waxed his other opponents on his way to the 2015 M(art)ch Madness championship. Picasso became the clear favorite with the early ouster of Matisse, and he steamrolled David Hockey, Marc Chagall, Alexander Calder, Wassily Kandinsky and Rene Magritte on his way to the final, never earning less than 60 percent of the votes.  That’s domination, homes. And unlike Kentucky, Picasso closed the deal.

Thanks to everyone who voted in the last round, and all the others. And thanks again to the indomitable James Banta for suggesting the name M(art)ch Madness. I had fun and hope you did to.  Before you go, take a minute to vote for the theme of next year’s tournament. And if you have other ideas, or suggestions on how to improve this annual silliness, please let me know in the comments section.

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015: Championship

03 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art, art history, sports

The M(art)ch Madness championship match up is set, and it’s down to two titans of 20th century art: Pablo Picasso vs. Piet Mondrian. After a tournament full of upsets and unexpected artist advancing – including seventh-seeded Paul Klee and 11th seeded Rene Magritte in the Final Four – order has been restored, with a contest between a first and second seed. Picasso has rampaged through the tournament, winning all his matches by a wide margin, and beat Magritte with 63 percent of the votes. Mondrian’s victory was narrower, but still convincing, with 55 percent of the votes against Klee.

Here are the full brackets (you’ll have to paste the URL into your browser, and click on “championship bracket” – sorry for the hassle):

http://www.bracketmaker.com/tlist.cfm?tid=457697

The final is a great match up of styles: Picasso’s rambunctious energy vs. Mondrian’s cool formalism. As always, vote for your favorite. The winner will be crowned the greatest artist of the 20th century. Check back Tuesday for the results, and a chance to vote on the format of M(art)ch Madness 2016.

Here are some answers to any questions you may have about all this: FAQs

On to the voting:

No. 1 Pablo Picasso vs.
girl-before-a-mirror

No. 2 Piet Mondrian

Piet_Mondriaan,_1930_-_Mondrian_Composition_II_in_Red,_Blue,_and_Yellow

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015: Final Four

31 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art, art history, sports

The M(art)ch Madness Final Four is set, and it’s an all-European, all-painter (and all male) quartet. In one semi-final, No.1 seed Pablo Picasso takes on upstart 11th seed Rene Magritte, while on the other side of the bracket, No. 2  seed Piet Mondrian faces No. 7 Paul Klee.

While it’s no surprise Picasso and Mondrian made it to the Final Four, Magritte had a tough road, beating a four higher seeded artist across a range of genres: Diane Arbus, Gerhard Richter, Mark Rothko and finally Edward Hopper. Paul Klee had a slightly easier path, beating lower-seeded Thomas Hart Benton (No. 14) and Man Ray (11), as well as higher seeds Robert Rauschenberg and Diego Rivera.

If you’re new to this silliness, here are some FAQs to help explain it.

As always, vote for your favorites. The winners will face off to determine the greatest artist of the 20th century (more or less).

Final Four

No. 1 Pablo Picasso vs.

Les_Demoiselles_d'Avignon

No. 11 Rene Magritte

the-hunters-at-the-edge-of-night

 

No. 2 Piet Mondrian vs.

pietmondrianredyellowblue

No. 7 Paul Klee

Comedy 1921 by Paul Klee 1879-1940

 

 

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015: Elite Eight

28 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art, art history, sports

We’re now down to the Elite Eight of M(art)ch Madness, the most important art history basketball tournament ever.

Upsets continued to ravage the Berlin and Los Angeles regionals, where No. 1 seed Marcel Duchamp and No. 2 seed Mark Rothko were booted. In the Paris and new York regionals, however, favorites prevailed, and the top two seeds in both are still alive, setting up some major battles.

Here are the full brackets: http://www.bracketmaker.com/tlist.cfm?tid=457697

And here some the FAQs that might help explain what this is all about.

On to the match ups!

Los Angeles Regional

No. 5 Diego Rivera vs.

thread-rivera-blog427

No. 7 Paul Klee

a1923 - ile engloutie

 

New York Regional

No. 1 Jackson Pollock vs.

Autumn_Rhythm

No. 2 Piet Mondrian

Piet_Mondriaan,_1942_-_Broadway_Boogie_Woogie

 

Berlin Regional

No. 8 Edward Hopper vs.

gas

No. 11 Rene Magritte

magritte-pipe

 

Paris Regional

No. 1 Pablo Picasso vs.

boy-with-pipe

No. 2 Wassily Kandinsky

Vassily_Kandinsky,_1923_-_Circles_in_a_Circle

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015: Sweet 16

24 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art, art history, sports

There are just 16 teams left in M(art)ch Madness 2015, the tournament to decide the greatest artist of the 20th century.

Upsets abounded. Henri Matisse, the No. 1 seed in the Berlin regional, was booted by No. 8 Edward Hopper. In the same bracket, Rene Magritte (No. 11) ousted No. 3 Gerhard Richter. No. 11 seeds Gustav Klimt and Man Ray also survived.

Elsewhere, chalk prevailed. In the New York regional, all top four seeds advanced, setting up huge match-ups: Jackson Pollock vs. Roy Lichtenstein and Jasper Johns vs. Piet Mondrian.

To see the complete brackets, go here:

http://www.bracketmaker.com/tmenu.cfm?tid=457697

(You have to paste the URL into your browser and click “championship bracket.” Sorry – I know it’s a hassle.)

Here’s some FAQs to help make sense of the tournament.

On to the Sweet 16:

Berlin Regional

No. 4 Georges Braque vs.

gueridon

No. 8 Edward Hopper

automat

 

No. 2 Mark Rothko vs.

Rothko

No. 11 Rene Magritte

Ren? Magritte, The Son of Man, 1964, Restored by Shimon D. Yanowitz, 2009  øðä îàâøéè, áðå ùì àãí, 1964, øñèåøöéä ò"é ùîòåï éðåáéõ, 2009

 

Los Angeles Regional

No. 1 Marcel Duchamp vs.

98.291_01_b02

No. 5 Diego Rivera

50798

 

No. 7 Paul Klee vs.

5736524_orig

No. 11 Man Ray

ingre-s-violin-1924

 

Paris Regional

No.1 Pablo Picasso vs.

two-women-running-on-the-beach

No. 4 Alexander Calder

FB_sam01_calder_g_lg

 

No. 2 Wassily Kandinsky vs.

kandinsky.comp-6

No. 11 Gustav Klimt

Gustav_Klimt_010

 

New York Regional

No. 1 Jackson Pollock vs.

number-one

No. 4 Roy Lichtenstein

modular-painting-with-four-panels-1-1969(1)

 

No. 2 Piet Mondrian

comp-10

No. 3 Jasper Johns

IMG_1364.JPG

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015: Round 2

20 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art, art history, sports

Welcome to the second round of M(art)ch Madness 2015, where your votes decide the greatest artist of the 20th century! (Really.)

Round 1 saw some big upsets, with the biggest coming in the Los Angeles Regional. No. 3 seed Kasimir Malevich was ousted by No. 14 seed Jean-Michel Basquiat and Man Ray, a No. 11 seed, destroyed No. 6 Ellsworth Kelly, grabbing 81 percent of the votes. Ray is now the last photographer still in the tournament.

Also out are higher seeds Diane Arbus (losing to Rene Magritte) and Amedeo Modigliani, who lost a squeaker to Joseph Cornell. Jackson Pollock, the top seed in the New York Regional, narrowly averted a huge upset bid by No. 16 Frida Kahlo, with just 50.6 percent of the votes (or just 3 votes).  Remember, your votes matter!

The full bracket, with percentages for each contest, is here: http://www.bracketmaker.com/tlist.cfm?tid=457697

(Apologies for the crap website – you have to paste the link into your browser and click on “championship bracket”)

If this whole exercise seems slightly ridiculous, you’re not alone. But here are some FAQs that might help it make sense.

And now on to the second round. Vote using any criteria that makes sense to you. But vote!

Paris Regional

No. 1 Pablo Picasso vs.

seated-woman

No. 8 Marc Chagall

Chagall_Circus

 

No. 4 Alexander Calder vs.

4083899463_9d1e74f37a_z

No. 12 Joseph Cornell

cornell.medici-princess

 

No. 3 Georgia O’Keeffe vs.

radiator-building

No. 11 Gustav Klimt

Birch-Trees

 

No. 2 Wassily Kandinsky vs,

kandinsky.comp-8

No. 10 Constantin Brancusi

Constantin_Brancusi,_Portrait_of_Mlle_Pogany,_1912,_Philadelphia_Museum_of_Modern_Art,_Philadelphia

 

New York Regional

No. 1 Jackson Pollock vs.

full-fathom-five

No. 8 Louise Bourgeois

louise bourgeois janus in leather jacket

 

No. 4 Roy Lichtenstein vs.

Brushstroke 1965 by Roy Lichtenstein 1923-1997

No. 5 Willem De Kooning

de-kooning512-e1324424941422

 

No. 3 Jasper Johns vs.

johnsinfo-lg

No. 6 Giorgio De Chirico

20060216002629!De_Chirico's_Love_Song

 

No. 2 Piet Mondrian vs.

lozenge-composition-with-red-gray-blue-yellow-and-black-1925

No. 7 Richard Serra

0910310006

 

Berlin Regional

No. 1 Henri Matisse vs.

The_Sorrows_of_the_King

No. 8 Edward Hopper

summer-evening

 

No. 4 Georges Braque vs.

landscape-at-la-ciotat-1907-1

No. 5 Andy Warhol

1998.1.248

No. 3 Gerhard Richter vs.

1024colours

No. 11 Rene Magritte

the-false-mirror-1928(1)

 

No.2 Mark Rothko vs.

Black on Maroon 1958 by Mark Rothko 1903-1970

No. 7 Joan Miro

blue-iii

 

Los Angeles Regional

No. 1 Marcel Duchamp vs.

transition-of-virgin-into-a-bride-1912

No. 9 Anselm Kiefer

jerusalem

 

No. 4 Henry Moore vs.

HenryMoore_RecliningFigure_1951

No. 5 Diego Rivera

flower-festival-1925

 

No. 11 Man Ray vs.

mr_30_0

No. 14 Jean-Michel Basquiat

basquiat_tenor

 

No. 2 Robert Rauschenberg vs.

Robert-Rauschenberg-Monogram-

No. 7 Paul Klee

e22d9314-37c7-11e3-8668-00144feab7de

Art History M(art)ch Madness: Round 1, part 2

17 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art, art history, sports

Welcome to the second half of M(art)ch Madness’s round 1 voting. We’re choosing the greatest artist of the 20th century, NCAA style.  Sixty-four artists will be winnowed down to one champion by your votes.

The artists are broken up into four regionals and seeded 1-16. Voting for the first two regionals began yesterday, while the rest starts today.

The full 64-team bracket can be found here:
http://www.bracketmaker.com/tlist.cfm?tid=457697.

If you’re wondering the hell this is all about, check out these FAQs

Make sure you vote in the first half of round 1 here. Voting will run through Thursday (not Friday, as I said earlier), so make sure you cast your vote.

Berlin Regional

No. 1 Henri Matisse vs.

Matisse_-_Music

No. 16 George Bellows

1918-002a

 

No. 8 Edward Hopper vs.

edward-hopper-e1348960126745

No. 9 Cy Twombly

untitled_bacchus_series_2005

 

No. 5 Andy Warhol vs.

warhol_Marylin_medium

No. 12 Cindy Sherman

G08A08Untitled-397.2000_large-315x475

 

No. 4 Georges Braque vs.

(c) DACS - FULL CONSULT; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

No. 13 Bruce Nauman

Bruce-Nauman_Run-from-Fear-Fun-from-Rear_1972

 

No. 5 Diane Arbus vs.

28

No. 11 Rene Magritte

golconda

 

No. 3 Gerhard Richter vs.

ozartsetc_gerhard-richter_peinture_131-e1340230892515

No. 14 Max Ernst

L'Ange_du_Foyeur

 

No. 7 Joan Miro vs.

the-nightingale-s-song-at-midnight-and-the-morning-rain

No. 10 Edward Weston

edward-weston-nude-1934-1368775739_org

 

No. 2 Mark Rothko vs.

blue-and-gray

No. 15 Charles DeMuth

NY_Met_demuth_figure_5_gold

 

 

Los Angeles Regional

No. 1 Marcel Duchamp vs.

Duchamp.-Bicycle-Wheel-395x395

No. 16 Chuck Close

chuck-close-lucas

 

No. 8 Lucian Freud vs.

lucian freud lying by the rags 1989-1990

No. 9 Anselm Kiefer

012-anselm-kiefer-theredlist

 

No. 5 Diego Rivera vs.

A portion of the north wall of Rivera's murals in the DIA

No. 12 Ansel Adams

My-Ansel-Adams-Tribute

 

No. 4 Henry Moore vs.

Recumbent Figure 1938 by Henry Moore OM, CH 1898-1986

No. 13 Dan Flavin

img_6341

 

No. 6 Ellsworth Kelly vs.

dsc00109

No. 11 Man Ray

man-ray-solarization-3

 

No. 3 Kazimir Malevich vs.

CRI_174840

No. 14 Jean-Michel Basquiat

philistines

 

No. 7 Paul Klee vs.

bad-band-1920(1)

No. 10 Thomas Hart Benton

15large

 

No. 2 Robert Rauschenberg vs.

portofentry

No. 15 Joan Mitchell

edrita-fried-1981

 

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015: Frequently Asked Questions

17 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art, art history, sports

What’s the point?

Mostly, to have fun. But also to see what happens when you cross the world of sports with the world of art. I’m a fan of both, and it seemed interesting to apply the rigid rules of the NCAA college basketball tournament to the much more nebulous world of art history.

And while I didn’t intend anything high-minded when I set this up, I’ve noticed I’m seeing some of these artists in a new way once their works are juxtaposed against those from different eras or genres. Common themes start to emerge, and the building blocks of art – line, tone, color – are consistent across styles. So we might all learn something by accident.

I don’t know anything about art. Can I play?

Of course. I’ve tried to provide a representative sample of each artists work – just vote for what you like. And you probably know more about art than college basketball, anyway.

What’s the format?

I tried to mirror the classic NCAA men’s basketball tournament structure as closely as feasible. So: 64 artists broken down into four  brackets, and seeded 1 through 16. In the first round,  the No. 1 seed plays No. 16, No. 2 plays No. 15 etc. In the second round, the winner of 1 vs. 16 plays the winner of the 8 vs. 9 and so on.  This year, I started the contest with four play-in contests to select the 16th seeds (something the NCAA now does).

How did you choose and seed the artists?

The idea was to start with the 68 most significant visual artists of the 20th century. I included painters, sculptors and photographers, and omitted architects, film makers and performance artists. That might seem arbitrary, but it I had to draw a boundary somewhere.

Then I went through lists of artists and grouped them in four tiers, from obvious top seeds down to more marginal cases. Those tiers formed the basis of the seedings, with the top group making up  the 1-4 seeds, the next group 5-8 and so on. I wanted the list to reflect conventional choices, but I also wanted diversity in genres, geography and gender. So when there was a border line call, I tended to choose a photographer or sculptor vs. yet another abstract expressionist. I tried to keep my own biases out of it, and I excluded some of my favorites. To get to 64, lots of major artists were left out but hopefully my choices make sense. If not, let me know.

The match-ups were somewhat arbitrary, although I tried to avoid having similar artists face each other in the first or second rounds. The contests are more fun when the styles are so different, and I didn’t want a major school eliminated by the second round.

Why did you put some artists in the 20th century and leave out others?

For artists that span two centuries, I had to make a call based on what century I thought they belonged in, usually based on what movement they are associated with. So I consider Monet, Rodin and Cezanne 19th century artists, while Klimt belongs in the 20th. And frankly, given how many great 20th century artists had to be felt out, I was happy not to have to consider more.

How did you choose the works?

This is a contest of artists, not artwork, so mostly, I’m picking works that are representative of their careers. For the most well-known artists, I sometimes try to use their less obvious works. And for the lower seeds, who might only be in the contest for one round, I tend to give them their most iconic works, so at least they go down swinging.

For some 20th century artists whose work is more conceptual, like Bruce Nauman, or whose works are meant to be viewed together, like Cindy Sherman, I’ve found picking single works frustrating. But I don’t see an easy way around it – posting multiple works seems unfair to the other artists. I’m open to suggestions, though.

Occasionally, two very different artists will have works that echo each other, and sometimes I’ll make selections based on those if I see them, but mostly that’s a happy accident.

How come (my favorite artist) isn’t in the tournament? 

Again, choices were made and limiting it to 68 artists resulted in some tough calls. I left out a lot of my personal favorites. In truth, you could swap out the bottom 20 artists in the field with the first 20 left out without much drop off in quality.

What happens next?

After the close of the first round Thursday, I’ll post the second round of 32 artists Friday. Then we’ll reduce the field to the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four before choosing the champion in the first week of April. Stay tuned!

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015: First Round, part 1

16 Monday Mar 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

art history, sports

Welcome to M(art)ch Madness 2015, the not-entirely-serious contest to determine the greatest artist of the 20th century. The format is the same as the NCAA men’s basketball tournament: four brackets of 16 artists, in single-elimination contests. In this case, the winners are determined by YOUR votes.

After four play-in games to determine the four 16 seeds, the 64 bracket is set. The last two voted in were David Hockney (beating Max Beckmann) and Frida Kahlo (over Claes Oldenburg). Unfortunately, the votes split evently in the other two, so I had to cast the tie-breaking votes, in this case for Chuck Close (over Grant Wood) and George Bellows (over Agnes Martin). See what happens if you don’t vote?

The full 64-team bracket can be found here:

 http://www.bracketmaker.com/tlist.cfm?tid=457697.

(It’s a crappy website but it’s the best I found to host the bracket. Click on “championship bracket.” Suggestions for improving it are welcome)

The artists and seedings were chosen by me. Scroll to the bottom of this page to read more about that.

First-round voting begins today. I’ll post half of the first round match-ups today, then the rest tomorrow. Voting will run through Friday. Make sure you vote and please share this with anyone who might be interested.

Paris Regional

No. 1 Pablo Picasso vs.

32.PabloPicasso-Three-Musicians-1921

No. 16 David Hockney

Hockney.clark-percy-1

 

No. 8 Marc Chagall vs.

Marc_Chagall,_1911,_I_and_the_Village,_oil_on_canvas,_192.1_x_151.4_cm,_Museum_of_Modern_Art,_New_York

No. 9 Salvador Dali

EXHI006876

 

No. 5 Amedeo Modigliani

Modigliani

No. 12 Joseph Cornell

cornell.hotel-eden

 

No. 4 Alexander Calder vs.

calder1

No. 13 Josef Albers

02-albers_notext

 

No. 6 Alberto Giocometti vs.

alberto-giacometti-the-walking-man-i-1960-1342523714_org

No. 11 Gustav Klimt

Gustav_Klimt_046

 

No. 3 Georgia O’Keeffe vs.

O'Keeffe_Jack

No. 14 Arshile Gorky

The_Artist_and_His_Mother

 

No. 7 Francis Bacon vs.

crucify2

No. 10 Constantin Brancusi

brancusi_2

 

No. 2 Wassily Kandinsky vs.

several_circles

No. 15 Jeff Koons

ballon-dog

 

New York regional

No. 1 Jackson Pollock vs.

pollock.number-8

No. 16 Frida Kahlo

the-two-fridas

 

No. 8 Louise Bourgeois vs.

Bürkliplatz_-_Louise_Bourgeois'_'Maman'_-_Alpenquai_2011-06-25_18-54-28_ShiftN2-1

No. 9 Fernand Leger

three-women-1921

 

No. 5 Willem De Kooning vs.

excavation

No. 12 Jenny Holzer

13holz_600

 

No. 4 Roy Lichtenstein vs.

Roy_Lichtenstein_Whaam

No. 13 Arthur Dove

sunrise-3

 

No. 6 Giorgio De Chirico vs.

Bild 083

No. 11 Donald Judd

Untitled 1980 by Donald Judd 1928-1994

 

No. 3 Jasper Johns vs.

map

No. 14 Isamu Noguchi

Oval Sculpture (No. 2) 1943, cast 1958 by Dame Barbara Hepworth 1903-1975

 

No. 7 Richard Serra

richard-serra

No. 10 Helen Frankenthaler

690346af5907936212ca013ab00f5c79

 

No. 2 Piet Mondrian vs

6-mondrian-composition-c-no-iii-with-red-yellow-and-blue-1935

No. 15 Richard Avedon

avedon_beekeeper

 

 How I chose and seeded the artists:

The idea was to select the 64 most significant visual artists of the 20th century. I included painters, sculptors and photographers, and omitted architects, film makers and performance artists. That might seem arbitrary, but it I had to draw a boundary somewhere.

Then I went through lists of artists and grouped them in four tiers, from obvious top seeds down to more marginal cases. Those tiers formed the basis of the seedings, with the top group making up  the 1-4 seeds, the next group 5-8 and so on. I wanted the list to reflect conventional choices, but I also wanted diversity in genres, geography and gender. So when there was a border line call, I tended to choose a photographer or sculptor vs. yet another abstract expressionist. I tried to keep my own biases out of it, and I excluded some of my favorites. To get to 64, lots of major artists were left out but hopefully my choices make sense. If not, let me know.

The match-ups were somewhat arbitrary, although I tried to avoid having similar artists face each other in the first or second rounds. The contests are more fun when the style’s are so different, and I didn’t want a major school eliminated by the second round.

Art History M(art)ch Madness 2015

13 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by percivalhenry in Art History March Madness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

art history, sports

M(art)ch Madness is back! The online tournament that combines the thrills of NCAA basketball with the fun of Art History 101 is back for its second year. This time, due to popular demand, we’re matching up the greatest artists of the 20th century. I’ve taken the top 68 artists of the last century and seeded them 1 through 15, with four play-in games to determine the 16th seeds. The full bracket is here.

Credit, and blame, for the seedings is entirely mine. I ranked the artists by significance, fame and skill, and tried to reflect what might be consensus choices. Where possible, I also strove for diversity of genre, geography and gender. Lots of wonderful artists were left out,  but choices had to be made. There were a great many on the bubble who could have easily been included. Please don’t be offended on behalf of your favorites; I left mine out as well. But comments and helpful criticisms are always welcome.

This year, to round out the field of 64, we’ll vote to determine the 16th seeds, who next week will face off against the four No. 1 seeds: Picasso, Matisse, Pollock and Duchamp Chagall. Voting for the play-in games will close Sunday. First round action begins Monday.

(Corrected to reflect Duchamp, not Chagall, is the fourth No. 1 seed, after the error was pointed out by an offended art historian).

Make sure you vote and please share this anyone who might be interested (or horrified).

Play-in games Max Beckmann vs. party-in-paris-1947 David Hockney pool_2_figures_72_f

Frida Kahlo vs.

Frida_Kahlo_(self_portrait)

Claes Oldenburg CLOTHSP

George Bellows vs.

1909_Stag_at_Sharkey's

Agnes Martin 31291_MARTIN

Grant Wood vs.

Grant_Wood_-_American_Gothic_-_Google_Art_Project

Chuck Close 69.102_close_imageprimacy_compressed_1140

← Older posts
  • “The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four Annual No. 15
  • “The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 223
  • “The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 222
  • “The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 221
  • “The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 220
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • September 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • February 2018
  • May 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • September 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • February 2018
  • May 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four Annual No. 15

“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four Annual No. 15

percivalhenry's avatar by percivalhenry July 18, 2026
“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 223

“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 223

percivalhenry's avatar by percivalhenry July 14, 2026
“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 222

“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 222

percivalhenry's avatar by percivalhenry July 5, 2026
“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 221

“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 221

percivalhenry's avatar by percivalhenry June 25, 2026
“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 220

“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 220

percivalhenry's avatar by percivalhenry June 15, 2026
“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 219

“The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” Fantastic Four No. 219

percivalhenry's avatar by percivalhenry June 7, 2026

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Percival Henry: The Fantastic Four and more
    • Join 74 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Percival Henry: The Fantastic Four and more
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...