Shark painting from men's adventure magazine

Enjoy giant size picture here. (Via Martin Klasch)


  1. Hey! Let me shoot through this yellow, inflatable  raft here, so we can piss off these sharks faster, and be eaten more quickly!

    1. He’s just evening the odds before he dives in to wrestle that shark, like a MAN. 

      Shooting dangerous predators from boats, or the backs of elephants, or similar safeish places is alright for Men’s Leisure magazines, it isn’t totally effeminate or anything; but it doesn’t turn into adventure until you engage in hand to hand combat.

        1.  Oh not that again!  You’ve been like this ever since you saw “The Vagina Monologues.”

          1. No, I’ve been like this ever since I stayed awake in sixth grade science class in 1968.

  2. This is an example of the very rarely documented “doggy-paddle” shark known for its ability to swim in place in menacing poses and to operate its fin remotely to full the prey into thinking there is a crowd of rowdy sharks and not just the nerd doing tai-chi.

    1. Really, it is a pretty damn elaborate work, and except for the goofy shark very well executed.

      You wonder about the economics of this sort of art. This was a cover for a second-rate magazine, but they went through the trouble of hiring a fairly skilled artist to pull it off. How much did he (or she) get paid? Was he allowed to sell the painting in some kind of gallery targeted to the tastes of he-man adventurers?

        1. Paintings. There are three of them. When Jaws opened and became a huge hit, the Museum Of Fine Arts in Boston hauled that out of the basement and had a grand reception for it at which they served shark hors d’oeuvres.

      1. Oh, I don’t know. I think it’s a competent enough shark. Most artists of this genre really did much better with human anatomy, anyway.

        I hear of pulp artists sometimes only sold the rights, and were permitted to keep the original paintings; but I understand a lot of them lost both the painting and the rights.

      2.   @ Stephan. That’s a heck of a lot more than just a “fairly skilled” artist. Attempt that same illustration in oils or acrylics and you’ll see what I mean.

    1.  Mostly the eyes seem to be saying “Why? Why won’t you love me? Whhhyyy?”

      I like the painting but the foreground is sort of tacked on, like he was waiting for inspiration, like “Kraken? …..Nazi frogman?… Killer whale?…Doh! Look at the time! We’re going with the shark.”

  3. At first glance, I thought the guy in the water looked like Mark Frauenfelder. Upon closer inspection there are several major differences (it’s the hair and shape of the head and face that cause the resemblance), but also, the two guys look almost like identical twins with different colored hair. Perhaps the artist used himself as a model? 

  4. Sharks’ eyes recede back into their sockets when the shark attacks, so this sad-eyed shark is clearly not attacking.

    I heard that Ernest Hemmingway machine-gunned a shark once, causing a shark feeding frenzy.  Then he machine-gunned those sharks, causing a bigger frenzy.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

  5. Either the shooter is huge or his rifle is tiny. (Insert male adequacy joke here.) If it’s an M1903, according to Wikipedia it should be about 44″ long, or roughly 31″ from muzzle to the beginning of the stock. That makes the shooter’s forearm something like 18″ from elbow to wrist, which one would associate with someone about 9 feet tall.

    Maybe he’s a normal-size man desperately firing a BB gun at the shark.

    1.  I dunno, looks sort of like a carbine to me. I’ll be damned if I can find any sort of reference to a Springfield carbine though. Hell, that thing even has the proper sling for a Springfield on it so it’s the perspective that’s screwed up.

      1.  His right hand is awkwardly positioned, and the thumb is in an impossible position, since the cocked bolt is in that spot until the trigger is pulled.

        It looks like the gun was done at the last moment from a photograph for reference, and although it’s shown accurately, it clearly wasn’t posed with a model.  But that’s what makes it commercial art.

    2. They look like they are supposed to be a downed air crew. Was there ever some sort of cut-down ‘survival’ or carbine variant? I don’t know about the 1903; but it isn’t uncommon for whatever infantry rifle is standard at a given time to have a shortened and/or folding stock or otherwise modified variant that is designed to share as many parts as possible with the normal model, fit within the space and weight constraints of vehicles and aircraft, and be at least moderately more useful than a pistol…

      Could also just be hack artistry, of course.

  6. I’m mostly worried about guy-with-gun’s balance. He’s posed as if he’s on a stable platform, when presumably the boat was actually just tipped upwards on a swell (and is going down again). Pretty good odds on buddy-in-the-water getting shot by accident.

  7. I would have thought a poorly rendered carbine but it is a significantly shrunken Springfield. 

    Or the missing context is “10′ tall men battle sharks on the open seas”

Comments are closed.