For much of the time that Eric Stanton produced fetish artwork he shared a studio with Steve Ditko and despite Ditko's efforts over time to play down his role in that work, this book reveals that he was much more involved than has been generally acknowledged. And likewise it's just possible that Stanton gave Ditko a hand with is work, especially a little gem title Spider-Man.
Stanton's real name was Ernie Stanzoni and he would change his name quite a bit during his career and life. He started in art alongside Ditko in classes taught by Jerry Robinson. After working with the offbeat artist Boody Rogers on books like Babe, he discovered that narrative comics weren't his primary interest. He was an artist who found illustration more up his alley and he used those skills working for folks like Irving Klaw. Klaw was one of those publishers who specialized in photography mostly, selling images of partially dressed dames to interested men across the country. Thanks to the fame of Bettie Page we remember those days with some nostalgic glow for a simpler time when women took off almost all their clothes for the delight of men. Other publishers such as Edward Mishkin and Stanley Malkin were eager to publish Stanton's work when Klaw was unable to do so. It was of course much more grim than that and all you have to do is read up about Page herself to know that.
In the 50's and 60's Stanton moved from underground publisher to publisher as one fell into legal trouble or fell out of cash. His artwork always seemed to be a draw for the customers aside from the photos. Other artists like Gene Bilibrew (Eneg) were also active in these markets. The call was for artwork which was not explicitly sexual as that was instantly tagged by the government, but for odd quasi-fashion fetish material that seemingly confused the issue of sexual arousal for censors. Bondage and Sado-Masochism were a large part of the kind of artwork that Stanton delivered though in a decidedly soft-core mode. The extent to which he was a part of this scene or just a documentarian of sorts is unclear though there's little said to suggest the former. In the 70's when what we truly understand as pornography became more widespread Stanton himself began to produce more provocative material. Also he began to produce Stantoons, a regular collection of his images.
Throughout is career Stanton was eager to keep a low profile, not to call attention to his art or himself for the sake of his children. That more than anything seems to be the reason that he didn't really press issues like his hand in the creation of Spider-Man, contributing in all probability details such as the web-shooters and the tender Aunt May (Stanton seems to have actually had an Aunt May). It's also been noted that Dr. Strange often featured elements of sado-masochism bondage in the nature of the traps that Doc and Clea and others encountered. The fact is that Ditko and Stanton worked together on each other's gigs and while that's something Ditko was reluctant to claim, if in fact to deny, it is manifestly evident from some of the work produced, especially a highly successful comic narrative called Sweeter Gwen.
Just to clarify, this type of fetish artwork is not necessarily my cup of tea. But that said I'm not going to deny that Eric Stanton and his partner Steve Ditko don't create some evocative and erotic images in Sweeter Gwen -- Captive of Bondage Manor, a slapstick yarn about an innocent but beautiful naif assaulted by a cadre of villains who want a map she's unaware that she even has. (I happens to be in a place she might not see it all the time.) The point of these stories is to get lovely buxom women into situations of bondage as swiftly and as handsomely rendered as possible. Ideally they will be in some state of undress, and that's key for the very specific audience for these "serials". It's not nudity that makes these types of fetish comics effective, but the promise of potential nudity stopping short with much evocative lace and leather. I was a bit gobsmacked by the prices paid for these pages, which were delivered a few pages at a time for five bucks or so a pop. (That's 60's money by the way.)
Sweeter Gwen -- Captive of Bondage Manor is an homage to John Willie, a groundbreaking fetish artist who was one of Stanton's artistic heroes. Willie had created a character in his The Adventures of Sweet Gwen who was effectively identical to the lovely damsel in distress we find in this comic.
While gazing upon lovely dames in pretty much any state of dress or undress is not unpleasant to me, I confess little interest in this form of kinky presentation, and at the risk of protesting too much I think like many this has perhaps caused me to overlook something quite obvious. Steve Ditko was a fetish artist. He was not as I had previously thought a colleague who helped touch up an image here and there for his studio mate who was a fetish artist, but instead he was part of an artistic team which intentionally created narratives within the confines of the fetish field. It's a bit of a surprise to find this out about a guy who despite his reclusive nature has had his work work feverishly examined for decades now.
Looking at Sweeter Gwen it's obvious that Ditko has inked Stanton's lush pencils, bringing a focus and edge to the work not apparent in Stanton's work alone. The team of Stanton and Ditko is a pretty darn good and I can only have hoped to have seen them work together in the traditional comic arena in which I spend most of my time (or maybe I did and didn't know it). Ditko zealously claimed that his work spoke for him and in the instance of Sweeter Gwen - Captive of Bondage Manor it does so in spades. To bad he was ashamed of it apparently.
I wonder if the name "Gwen" ever came up in other comics Ditko worked on?
Rip Off
