Kirby & Marvel
re...@utdallas.edu
make a more amicable relation between the two parties, they were in no
way obligated to do so. Was it not true that Kirby signed his ownership
of the art and characters away? This topic seems to occur perenially
with Marvel taking on an increasingly demonic form with each
interpretative permutation. (Witness F. Miller's vitriolic diatribe in
Sin City #3.) With Kirby's inept renderings, it seems he was lucky to
find a job anywhere, so why do people feel the need to continually harp
on this issue? Kirby didn't have enough "artistic integrity" at the time
time of his putting ink to contract to demand ownership, so why should he
(or especially his family) get ownership upon finding out that he could
make a lot of money now? If there were other ethical factors besides
greed involved, perhaps I might be a bit more sympathetic, but as it
stands, I see this situation as merely a business one with one side
regretting prior actions.
Marc Singer
of the facts?
Here's one: Kirby had no choice but to give up the rights to his artwork.
No choice, that is, except unemployment or not signing and cashing his
checks.
Marc
Paul T. Riddell
Hear hear. One of the biggest problems with the comics field as it
stood pre-creator rights was that the company owned everything. If
the company could get away with it, it did and still does (I have an
editor friend who tells me that she gets irregular calls from editors
who need a writer or artist ASAP, because the existing one on a comic
"was busy with other things"...which was news to the person already
doing the work). It's not just that Kirby could have made money from
his artwork: it's that it was his work, and he should have had the
right to keep it, even if he only planned to use it for toilet paper.
(Of course, IMHO, if Stan Lee was such the genius that he claims to
be, then why didn't he draw the damn comics?) The fact that Kirby
is now dead makes it more tragic: you seriously don't think that Marvel
is going to pay royalties for reprints to his family? The crew there
would take hot Clorox enemas before that would happen: bank on it.
re...@utdallas.edu
Paul T. Riddell (m...@onramp.net) wrote:
Marc Singer:
> > So, was that a troll or is re...@utdallas.edu really in total ignorance
> > of the facts?
Please present some.
> > Here's one: Kirby had no choice but to give up the rights to his artwork.
> > No choice, that is, except unemployment or not signing and cashing his
> > checks.
Are you suggesting that all artists of the 50s and 60s had no choice
other than signing their rights away or umemployment? Neal Adams did
other things and seems to have no ill feelings such as those expressed
by Kirby and his loyalists. Of course, Adams possessed the talent to do
other things. It is my contention that Kirby was a hack who did what he
did for a paycheck, the same as all 9 to 5ers. Let us also not forget
that there was a underground movement that never relinquished rights to a
corporation.
> > > > Marc > >
>
> Hear hear. One of the biggest problems with the comics field as it
> stood pre-creator rights was that the company owned everything.
If, that is, the creators chose to work for the company.
> If
> the company could get away with it, it did and still does (I have an
> editor friend who tells me that she gets irregular calls from editors
> who need a writer or artist ASAP, because the existing one on a comic
> "was busy with other things"...which was news to the person already
> doing the work). It's not just that Kirby could have made money from
> his artwork: it's that it was his work,
correction: it was Marvel's work.
> and he should have had the
> right to keep it
if he hadn't been payed for it, thus passing ownership over to Marvel.
>, even if he only planned to use it for toilet paper.
> (Of course, IMHO, if Stan Lee was such the genius that he claims to
> be, then why didn't he draw the damn comics?)
Elliot, Joyce, Shakespeare, et al. ... All idiots, because they couldn't
draw. (But then again, neither could Kirby, IMO)
> The fact that Kirby
> is now dead makes it more tragic: you seriously don't think that Marvel
> is going to pay royalties for reprints to his family?
As well they shouldn't. What the hell did his family have to do with his
creative process.
> The crew there
> would take hot Clorox enemas before that would happen: bank on it.
Sincerely,
the troll.
Lance Visser
+>Before I start, I'm moving the thread to include racm, as it seems more
+>apropos. However, as I didn't start it, I'm not eliminating it from raca.
+>Paul T. Riddell <m...@onramp.net> wrote:
+>>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
+>>>
+>>> Here's one: Kirby had no choice but to give up the rights to his artwork.
+>>> No choice, that is, except unemployment or not signing and cashing his
+>>> checks.
He never gave up the rights to the physical artwork. Marvel
had the artwork and said basically, if you want it back either sign
this agreement saying you have given up other rights which we claim you
don't have anyway....or (implicitly) take it to court.
Marvel had no legal case to stand on in keeping the art and
they knew it. But they could keep the case tied up in court forever
or at least until kirby was dead and broke.
Lance Visser
+>While I admit that Marvel could have returned Kirby's art in order to
+>make a more amicable relation between the two parties, they were in no
+>way obligated to do so.
This is totally false sir.
+>Was it not true that Kirby signed his ownership
+>of the art and characters away?
No, it was not. Marvel returned art to other creators but
expected kirby to sign a special legal document surrendering rights
marvel claimed he did not have.
If marvel had the rights to all the characters free and clear
from a legal point of view, why didn't they return the art to kirby
as they did to every other marvel artist?
+>This topic seems to occur perenially
+>with Marvel taking on an increasingly demonic form with each
+>interpretative permutation.
Everytime this topic comes up, someone has to go over the real
facts of the case because people like you invariably have them wrong.
Totally wrong.
+>(Witness F. Miller's vitriolic diatribe in
+>Sin City #3.)
+>With Kirby's inept renderings, it seems he was lucky to
+>find a job anywhere, so why do people feel the need to continually harp
+>on this issue?
I'm beginning to hope that this is some sort of flame-bait.
If not, you know nothing about art and little about comics.
There is no point in saying anymore.
Other than this issue usually is brought up by people like
you who dont know the facts.
+>Kirby didn't have enough "artistic integrity" at the time
+>time of his putting ink to contract to demand ownership, so why should he
+>(or especially his family) get ownership upon finding out that he could
+>make a lot of money now?
What contract said that the physical art was the property of
marvel? There was no contract that said that. The company simply
kept the art and didn't give it back. Other companies simply
destroyed it.
Marvel knew that if taken to court over the issue, they
would lose. That is why they returned most of the art to other
marvel artists.
+>If there were other ethical factors besides
+>greed involved, perhaps I might be a bit more sympathetic, but as it
+>stands, I see this situation as merely a business one with one side
+>regretting prior actions.
Marvel kept the art because the artists were not in a financial
position to object. They did various arbitrary things in the pastt
because they knew no creator had enough money to sucessfully sue them.
The contracts and other legal arrangements up to 1978 and
before are not that solid in the comics industry. Marvel KNOWS
that. The only thing that sustains most of those contracts is
that marvel can literally keep anyone who brings a case in court
until the legal costs break them.
Lance Visser
+>Lance Visser (vis...@convex.com) wrote:
+>> In <3ig83n$o...@utdallas.edu> re...@utdallas.edu writes:
+>> +>While I admit that Marvel could have returned Kirby's art in order to
+>> +>make a more amicable relation between the two parties, they were in no
+>> +>way obligated to do so.
+>> This is totally false sir.
+>> +>Was it not true that Kirby signed his ownership
+>> +>of the art and characters away?
+>> No, it was not. Marvel returned art to other creators but
+>> expected kirby to sign a special legal document surrendering rights
+>> marvel claimed he did not have.
+>> If marvel had the rights to all the characters free and clear
+>> from a legal point of view, why didn't they return the art to kirby
+>> as they did to every other marvel artist?
+>> +>This topic seems to occur perenially
+>> +>with Marvel taking on an increasingly demonic form with each
+>> +>interpretative permutation.
+>> Everytime this topic comes up, someone has to go over the real
+>> facts of the case because people like you invariably have them wrong.
+>> Totally wrong.
+>> +>(Witness F. Miller's vitriolic diatribe in
+>> +>Sin City #3.)
+>> +>With Kirby's inept renderings, it seems he was lucky to
+>> +>find a job anywhere, so why do people feel the need to continually harp
+>> +>on this issue?
+>> I'm beginning to hope that this is some sort of flame-bait.
+>> If not, you know nothing about art and little about comics.
+>> There is no point in saying anymore.
+>Why does my distaste for Kirby's art mean I know little of art in
+>general? or comics in general?
There is a difference between "dislike" of a particular artist
or his style and calling that artist "inept" or claiming that "he was
lucky to find a job anywhere".
You apparently know little of the history of comics if you
are making statements like "It seems he was lucky to find a job
anywhere."
+>You're confusing semantic knowledge with
+>aesthetics.
I have no problem with people not liking Kirby or anyone
elses art or art style. I have a large problem with translating
dislike of a particular style into a comment that the artist
is "inept" and that he was lucky to even be hired. Especially
when the artist has the sales/track record from the 40's to
the early 70's that Kirby did.
+>> Other than this issue usually is brought up by people like
+>> you who dont know the facts.
+>> +>Kirby didn't have enough "artistic integrity" at the time
+>> +>time of his putting ink to contract to demand ownership, so why should he
+>> +>(or especially his family) get ownership upon finding out that he could
+>> +>make a lot of money now?
+>> What contract said that the physical art was the property of
+>> marvel? There was no contract that said that. The company simply
+>> kept the art and didn't give it back. Other companies simply
+>> destroyed it.
+>> Marvel knew that if taken to court over the issue, they
+>> would lose. That is why they returned most of the art to other
+>> marvel artists.
+>If what you say is true, then the artwork is legally Kirby's. However,
+>it is my understanding that the character ownership is Marvel's. Thus,
+>in much the same way that I couldn't sell pictures of the Fantastic Four,
+>I don't believe Kirby would be able to either without Marvel's permission.
That is not the way that it works. The content on the page
does not affect the ability of the artist to sell the page. Marvel
owns the reproduction rights to the art, but not the original art.
The freelance contracts that the art was produced under didn't
sell the physical art itself to marvel.
+>> +>If there were other ethical factors besides
+>> +>greed involved, perhaps I might be a bit more sympathetic, but as it
+>> +>stands, I see this situation as merely a business one with one side
+>> +>regretting prior actions.
+>> Marvel kept the art because the artists were not in a financial
+>> position to object. They did various arbitrary things in the past
+>> because they knew no creator had enough money to sucessfully sue them.
+>Then why give it back to any of them?
They started giving it back to buy some good will with artists.
At the time, marvel was getting scared because small direct-market companies
were starting up and offering things like royalties and the return of
original art. I believe that DC finally started giving it back and
marvel was left in a position where it could no longer hold on to the
art.
+>> The contracts and other legal arrangements up to 1978 and
+>> before are not that solid in the comics industry. Marvel KNOWS
+>> that. The only thing that sustains most of those contracts is
+>> that marvel can literally keep anyone who brings a case in court
+>> until the legal costs break them.
+>>
+>One thing that leaves me less than sanguine that you know the facts is
+>that why is there a connection between the physical art and the character
+>ownership?
There is NO connection between the physical art and character
ownership in the law. Marvel decided to MAKE one by only returning
art to him if he signed a special unique to him legal document surrendering
a variety of rights which marvel claimed he did not have.
They were using the return of the art to extort surrender of
rights from Kirby. They were in effect holding it hostage.
+>Marvel does not need the artwork for anything (they gave it
+>back to other artists), yet they kept Kirby's. Either A) there is, in
+>fact, a legal connection between the physical artwork and the
+>characters. In which case, Marvel does have a stake in keeping the
+>artwork (this was my original, perhaps mistaken, assumption). Or B)
+>there is no connection and Marvel is keeping Kirby's artwork in
+>particular for no reason (other than they are dicks).
I dont believe there ever was a public reason given. Jim Shooter told
the fan press that there were "reasons", but he would not disclose
them. Part of the confusion on this whole issue is that marvel
never really tried to explain their behavior or the reasons behind it.
Some of the potential reasons:
1. Marvel was using return of the artwork to extort concessions
on other issues between Kirby and Marvel.
2. Marvel had allowed much of the kirby art to be stolen from
the marvel offices. They didn't have all that much art to
return and were frightened of the questions that would be
raised if they did return a very small amount of art.
The inventory of the marvel art-vault in the late 70's leaked
to the fan-press. A large amount of art disappeared between
then and when marvel returned the art.
At the start of the return process, marvel refused to even
tell Kirby how many pages of his art they had. He refused
to let Kirby's agent catalog the art (at Kirby's expense).
or even let Kirby and his wife fly to New York (at Kirby's
expense) and catalog the art.
It wasn't just a matter of the return of the art, marvel refused to
even tell Kirby how much art they had of his.
+>Since Marvel can,
+>at any time, reprint Kirby's stuff without the physical artwork, why
+>would they keep it with the possibility of having to screw around with
+>lawsuits.
The only conclusion that makes any sense is that they were
using the return of the art as leverage on other legal issues.
Why else would they come up with a unique kirby-only document that
he had to sign surrendering various rights. No other artist was expected
to sign the document that was presented to kirby.
Bob Heer
the heirs of deceased creators. I certainly hope so, since it would be
morally indefensible not to, and I imagine most pros would complain if
that was the case.
Bob Heer
re...@utdallas.edu
quotations). However, I still have a few bones...
I suppose it is possible to like ineptness (we do after all live in a
democracy). "Ineptness" was a judgement call on my part due to what I
view as Kirby's artistic intentions (e.g.three-dimensionality) and his
success, or lack thereof, at carrying them off (e.g. arms that look
grotesquely shortened, supposedly normal size people looking like giants,
lack of shadowing creating that "oh so accentuated" flat look). The
second comment was hyperbole, dispensed with full knowledge that
populism, mixed with 2 parts capitalism will result in the lowest
estimate of probable talent everytime. To wit:
> You apparently know little of
the history of comics
if you > are making statements like "It seems he was lucky to find a job
> anywhere."
> +>You're confusing semantic knowledge with
> +>aesthetics.
>
> I have no problem with people not liking Kirby or anyone
> elses art or art style. I have a large problem with translating
> dislike of a particular style into a comment that the artist
> is "inept" and that he was lucky to even be hired. Especially
> when the artist has the sales/track record from the 40's to
> the early 70's that Kirby did.
Only in America would someone mention sales record to the masses as an
argument against ineptitude. Plus, if Kirby was such a hot property, why
not go elsewhere (his own business, for one)? I think people romanticize
Kirby because of those boyhood days of collecting Fantastic Four or whatnot.
> +>> Other than this issue usually is brought up by people like
> +>> you who dont know the facts.
> +>> +>Kirby didn't have enough "artistic integrity" at the time
> +>> +>time of his putting ink to contract to demand ownership, so why should he
> +>> +>(or especially his family) get ownership upon finding out that he could
> +>> +>make a lot of money now?
> +>> What contract said that the physical art was the property of
> +>> marvel? There was no contract that said that. The company simply
> +>> kept the art and didn't give it back. Other companies simply
> +>> destroyed it.
> +>> Marvel knew that if taken to court over the issue, they
> +>> would lose. That is why they returned most of the art to other
> +>> marvel artists.
> +>If what you say is true, then the artwork is legally Kirby's. However,
> +>it is my understanding that the character ownership is Marvel's. Thus,
> +>in much the same way that I couldn't sell pictures of the Fantastic Four,
> +>I don't believe Kirby would be able to either without Marvel's permission.
> That is not the way that it works. The content on the page
> does not affect the ability of the artist to sell the page. Marvel
> owns the reproduction rights to the art, but not the original art.
> The freelance contracts that the art was produced under didn't
> sell the physical art itself to marvel.
sounds probable.
> +>> +>If there were other ethical factors besides
> +>> +>greed involved, perhaps I might be a bit more sympathetic, but as it
> +>> +>stands, I see this situation as merely a business one with one side
> +>> +>regretting prior actions.
> +>> Marvel kept the art because the artists were not in a financial
> +>> position to object. They did various arbitrary things in the past
> +>> because they knew no creator had enough money to sucessfully sue them.
> +>Then why give it back to any of them?
> They started giving it back to buy some good will with artists.
> At the time, marvel was getting scared because small direct-market companies
> were starting up and offering things like royalties and the return of
> original art. I believe that DC finally started giving it back and
> marvel was left in a position where it could no longer hold on to the
> art.
sounds like corporate strategy.
> +>> The contracts and other legal arrangements up to 1978 and
> +>> before are not that solid in the comics industry. Marvel KNOWS
> +>> that. The only thing that sustains most of those contracts is
> +>> that marvel can literally keep anyone who brings a case in court
> +>> until the legal costs break them.
> +>>
> +>One thing that leaves me less than sanguine that you know the facts is
> +>that why is there a connection between the physical art and the character
> +>ownership?
> There is NO connection between the physical art and character
> ownership in the law. Marvel decided to MAKE one by only returning
> art to him if he signed a special unique to him legal document surrendering
> a variety of rights which marvel claimed he did not have.
> They were using the return of the art to extort surrender of
> rights from Kirby. They were in effect holding it hostage.
More evidence is required for this accusation, it just doesn't make any
sense. Surrender of what rights? I've heard no one challenge the belief
that Kirby signed his rights to the characters away.
> +>Marvel does not need the artwork for anything (they gave it
> +>back to other artists), yet they kept Kirby's. Either A) there is, in
> +>fact, a legal connection between the physical artwork and the
> +>characters. In which case, Marvel does have a stake in keeping the
> +>artwork (this was my original, perhaps mistaken, assumption). Or B)
> +>there is no connection and Marvel is keeping Kirby's artwork in
> +>particular for no reason (other than they are dicks).
> I dont believe there ever was a public reason given. Jim Shooter told
> the fan press that there were "reasons", but he would not disclose
> them. Part of the confusion on this whole issue is that marvel
> never really tried to explain their behavior or the reasons behind it.
Why didn't Kirby? It seems a great deal of speculation on everyone's
part that wasn't there, which was my original intention of posting this
stuff to begin with.
> Some of the potential reasons:
> 1. Marvel was using return of the artwork to extort concessions
> on other issues between Kirby and Marvel.
such as?
> 2. Marvel had allowed much of the kirby art to be stolen from
> the marvel offices. They didn't have all that much art to
> return and were frightened of the questions that would be
> raised if they did return a very small amount of art.
> The inventory of the marvel art-vault in the late 70's leaked
> to the fan-press. A large amount of art disappeared between
> then and when marvel returned the art.
Marvel were ashamed to admit that someone stole from them? Sounds like
it would have been a useful alibi to me.
> At the start of the return process, marvel refused to even >
> tell Kirby how many pages of his art they had. He refused
> to let Kirby's agent catalog the art (at Kirby's expense).
> or even let Kirby and his wife fly to New York (at Kirby's
> expense) and catalog the art.
> It wasn't just a matter of the return of the art, marvel refused to
> even tell Kirby how much art they had of his.
> +>Since Marvel can,
> +>at any time, reprint Kirby's stuff without the physical artwork, why
> +>would they keep it with the possibility of having to screw around with
> +>lawsuits.
> The only conclusion that makes any sense is that they were
> using the return of the art as leverage on other legal issues.
again... such as?
> Why else would they come up with a unique kirby-only document that
> he had to sign surrendering various rights. No other artist was expected
> to sign the document that was presented to kirby.
The reasoning here sounds a bit like a conspiracist one often hears on
talk radio: "Why else...no other explanation...it HAD to have happened
just like this...." Which, hyperbole aside, was the impetus for my
original post--i.e. Frank Miller's diatribe. I just have this thing
about attempting to debunk fanciful plots.
Charles
Steve Lieber
"> +>With Kirby's inept renderings, it seems he was lucky to
to which Lance Visser replied:I'm beginning to hope that this is some sort of flame-bait.
> If not, you know nothing about art and little about comics.
> There is no point in saying anymore.
and then reece wrote back:
"Why does my distaste for Kirby's art mean I know little of art in
general? or comics in general? You're confusing semantic knowledge with
aesthetics.
Reece, you didn't say that you didn't like his work, you said that it was
"inept" and that "he was lucky to find a job anywhere." -That- is what shows
ignorance of comics. I don't have the cojones to present myself as an authority
on comics, but Gil Kane, Harvey Kurtzman, Will Eisner, CC Beck, Joe Kubert,
Burne Hogarth, David Mazzucheli, Moebius, Jaimie and Beto Hernandez, Alex Toth,
Frank Miller, Neal Adams and many, many other have written or spoken of Kirby's
work as brilliant, visionary and inspirational. I hope that the testimony of
artists who'd know better than you or I might lead you to question your use of
the word "inept."
To paraphrase Mark Evanier: "Marvel saying there's no market for Kirby? That's
like Playboy saying there's no market for tits."
Lieber
(who has only ever met one other pro in his career who didn't admire Jack. This
guy broke in with samples of Thor fighting the Juggernaut...)
Charles M Seaton
: I'll respond to both follow-ups here:
: Paul T. Riddell (m...@onramp.net) wrote:
: Marc Singer:
: > > So, was that a troll or is re...@utdallas.edu really in total ignorance
: > > of the facts?
: Please present some.
: > > Here's one: Kirby had no choice but to give up the rights to his artwork.
: > > No choice, that is, except unemployment or not signing and cashing his
: > > checks.
: Are you suggesting that all artists of the 50s and 60s had no choice
: other than signing their rights away or umemployment? Neal Adams did
: other things and seems to have no ill feelings such as those expressed
: by Kirby and his loyalists. Of course, Adams possessed the talent to do
Here's a couple of facts, you stupid probably-troll: Kirby worked
decades before Adams, for most of his career, including the period
in which he co-created the Marvel characters in question. And
Adams, in the '70s, was famous for (among other things) being the
loudest and most prominant supportor of creators rights within the
industry - if anything, he had far more "ill feelings" then Kirby
ever publically expressed.
(Also, if memory serves, Adams signed that petition demanding that
Marvel return Kirby's artwork without having Kirby sign the special
waiver.)
: other things. It is my contention that Kirby was a hack who did what he
: did for a paycheck, the same as all 9 to 5ers. Let us also not forget
: that there was a underground movement that never relinquished rights to a
: corporation.
..Which didn't come until after Kirby co-created a lot of Marvel
characters.
Of course, this is a troll - even signed that way. But I've seen
these same views expressed seriously so many times - mostly at
comiccons - that I can't resist responding. Oh, well...
Yours,
--Ennead
Who really shouldn't respond to such things...
re...@utdallas.edu
> reece wrote:
> "> +>With Kirby's inept renderings, it seems he was lucky to
> > +>find a job anywhere"
> to which Lance Visser replied:I'm beginning to hope that this is some sort of flame-bait.
> > If not, you know nothing about art and little about comics.
> > There is no point in saying anymore.
> and then reece wrote back:
> "Why does my distaste for Kirby's art mean I know little of art in
> general? or comics in general? You're confusing semantic knowledge with
> aesthetics.
> Reece, you didn't say that you didn't like his work, you said that it was
> "inept" and that "he was lucky to find a job anywhere."
It is an example of an indirect speech act. It is assumed that people do
not refer to things that they favor as "inept." (Methinks I might've
assumed too much--a certain Frenchman warned me as much.) I will grant
you that it was a bit hyperbolic and did exaggerate my point (perhaps a
bit too much). Next time I'll include a warning label.
>-That- is what shows ignorance of comics.
At most, it demonstrates an ignorance of certain technical skills that
Kirby possessed that I remain unaware of. In fairness, I will stipulate
my ignorance of the "Golden Age." Perhaps, Kirby began going through the
motions after the comics code?
> I don't have the cojones to present myself as an authority on comics,
> but Gil Kane, Harvey Kurtzman, Will Eisner, CC Beck, Joe Kubert,
> Burne Hogarth, David Mazzucheli, Moebius, Jaimie and Beto Hernandez, Alex
> Toth, Frank Miller, Neal Adams and many, many other have written or
> spoken of Kirby's work as brilliant, visionary and inspirational. I
> hope that the testimony of artists who'd know better than you or I
> might lead you to question your use of
> the word "inept."
I am aware of Kirby's popularity among the comicratti. However, I've
never heard any good arguments or critiques of Kirby's artistic skill. A
few of the people you name were fanboys at the time of Kirby's Marvel
days (I've read a few teary-eyed redolences by Miller), thus coloring
their views a bit. The majority of the others are friends of Kirby's. With
many of the people you name being on a par with Kirby, I am not so sure that
they are the best people
to ask for an informed critique. (It's a bit like my saying "Twisted
Sister suck!" and you proffer some rejoinder like "Well, Motley Crue and
Ratt like 'em.") My comment was *not* meant as trenchant commentary, only
a vulgar statement much like your exaggerated "brilliant, visionary and
inspirational" description (we're talking about an artist of superheroes
for Chrissakes)--maybe Ditko, but never Kirby.
> To paraphrase Mark Evanier: "Marvel saying there's no market for Kirby? That's
> like Playboy saying there's no market for tits."
Boobs do seem to control the marketplace, don't they?
> Lieber
> (who has only ever met one other pro in his career who didn't admire Jack.
This
> guy broke in with samples of Thor fighting the Juggernaut...)
I admit my culpability in including some off-handed remark about Kirby
leading all his fans to unite. I rescind my tacky statement with the
hope that comments will return to focus on the ownership of the art.
Sincerely,
Charles
Abhiji...@transarc.com
mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov (Four Weddings and an Elmo) writes:
> The concept of "work-for-hire" did not exist before 1978. The ownership
> of most characters created before that time is suspect
Yes and No. The problem was the nebulous freelancer definition. Marvel
kept most of its staff as freelancers so they didn't have to give them
benefits. DC doesn't, in general, have a problem with character
ownership with a few exceptions. [ Their hold over Superman and Batman,
in particular is rock-solid.]
> suit against Marvel over ownership of Howard the Duck. (Shooter's
> assertion that he could have ownership of fairly large hunks of the LSH,
> including the profitable Karate Kid license, is based on another point
> of law, however.)
Its based on the claim that Shooter was 13 or 14 at that time and hence
could claim that he was not legally bound to a contract signed as a
minor.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
re...@utdallas.edu writes:
[ Calls Kirby's work inept]
> Steve Lieber (72674...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
> > but Gil Kane, Harvey Kurtzman, Will Eisner, CC Beck, Joe Kubert,
> > Burne Hogarth, David Mazzucheli, Moebius, Jaimie and Beto Hernandez, Alex
> > Toth, Frank Miller, Neal Adams and many, many other have written or
> > spoken of Kirby's work as brilliant, visionary and inspirational. I
> > hope that the testimony of artists who'd know better than you or I
> > might lead you to question your use of
> > the word "inept."
>
> I am aware of Kirby's popularity among the comicratti. However, I've
> never heard any good arguments or critiques of Kirby's artistic
>skill.
Doubtless there's a lot you haven't heard.
> few of the people you name were fanboys at the time of Kirby's Marvel
> days (I've read a few teary-eyed redolences by Miller), thus coloring
> their views a bit. The majority of the others are friends of Kirby's. With
> many of the people you name being on a par with Kirby, I am not so sure that
> they are the best people to ask for an informed critique.
Then who is ? re...@utdallas.edu, in all his supreme intellect and
wisdom and his awesome record in the comics industry ?
The people cited above include several who were drawing long before
Kirby's Marvel days, and many who were drawing before his Golden Age
days, including Hogarth and Eisner (matter of fact, Kirby worked at
Eisner's studio). And in a relatively small industry like the comic
book industry, it would be practically impossible for top artists not
to know each other. The claim that their opinions are invalid because
they know Kirby is incredible bogus.
>My comment was *not* meant as trenchant commentary, only
> a vulgar statement much like your exaggerated "brilliant, visionary and
> inspirational" description (we're talking about an artist of superheroes
> for Chrissakes)--maybe Ditko, but never Kirby.
Again you demonstrate your ignorance. Kirby was not just an "artist of
superheroes", he drew Westerns, romance comics (actually co-created the
romance comic), horror comics, you know it. Would you also dismiss
Eisner as an "artist of superheroes" ?
Abhijit
Steve Lieber
for any of the original art. (Neal Adams pointed this out several years ago.)
If a court ever did rule that they had in fact purchased the physical
artwork and not just the right to reproduce, they'd immediately be liable
for 30-odd years of back taxes on every page they've ever printed. That's
a lot of pages.
re...@utdallas.edu
> re...@utdallas.edu writes:
> > Only in America would someone mention sales record to the masses as an
> > argument against ineptitude. Plus, if Kirby was such a hot property, why
> > not go elsewhere (his own business, for one)?
> Because there was no where else to go. This was an era in which corporate
> slugs told creators that it was *illegal* for them to own copyrights. This
> was an era in which the publishers owned or were related to the
> distributors; it was a chummy little club that upstarts (like Tower and
> Atlas) couldn't crack.
> > Lance Visser (vis...@convex.com) wrote:
> >> There is NO connection between the physical art and character
> >> ownership in the law. Marvel decided to MAKE one by only returning
> >> art to him if he signed a special unique to him legal document surrendering
> >> a variety of rights which marvel claimed he did not have.
> >
> > More evidence is required for this accusation, it just doesn't make any
> > sense. Surrender of what rights? I've heard no one challenge the belief
> > that Kirby signed his rights to the characters away.
> The concept of "work-for-hire" did not exist before 1978. The ownership
> of most characters created before that time is suspect--witness Gerber's
> suit against Marvel over ownership of Howard the Duck. (Shooter's
> assertion that he could have ownership of fairly large hunks of the LSH,
> including the profitable Karate Kid license, is based on another point
> of law, however.)
> Marvel and DC claim ownership of characters created for them even prior to
> 1978. Marvel was requiring Kirby to explicitly sign away his rights to
> those characters even though they were also claiming that he had no rights
> to the characters.
> > Why didn't Kirby? It seems a great deal of speculation on everyone's
> > part that wasn't there, which was my original intention of posting this
> > stuff to begin with.
> Kirby was a gentleman and felt no real urge to air his complaint with
> Marvel in public.
> > Marvel were ashamed to admit that someone stole from them? Sounds like
> > it would have been a useful alibi to me.
> It wasn't just stolen. It also was just given away to kids taking tours of
> the offices and the like.
> --
> "Nothing spells lovin' like marrying your cousin."--Al Bundy
>
> elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
you win. I stand corrected.
Charles
re...@utdallas.edu
> re...@utdallas.edu writes:
> [ Calls Kirby's work inept]
> > Steve Lieber (72674...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
> > > but Gil Kane, Harvey Kurtzman, Will Eisner, CC Beck, Joe Kubert,
> > > Burne Hogarth, David Mazzucheli, Moebius, Jaimie and Beto Hernandez, Alex
> > > Toth, Frank Miller, Neal Adams and many, many other have written or
> > > spoken of Kirby's work as brilliant, visionary and inspirational. I
> > > hope that the testimony of artists who'd know better than you or I
> > > might lead you to question your use of
> > > the word "inept."
> >
> > I am aware of Kirby's popularity among the comicratti. However, I've
> > never heard any good arguments or critiques of Kirby's artistic
> >skill.
> Doubtless there's a lot you haven't heard.
A truism, unfortunately.
> > few of the people you name were fanboys at the time of Kirby's Marvel
> > days (I've read a few teary-eyed redolences by Miller), thus coloring
> > their views a bit. The majority of the others are friends of
Kirby's. With
> > many of the people you name being on a par with Kirby, I am not so sure that
> > they are the best people to ask for an informed critique.
> Then who is ? re...@utdallas.edu, in all his supreme intellect and
> wisdom and his awesome record in the comics industry ?
When it comes to comic books of the variety we're talking about,
certainly not many of the people who churn out drek year after year.
Many comics are fun and disposable, to turn serious artistic criticism
towards them would be abomination. What would be the point, when they were
not intended as a serious artistic medium at the time? I would hardly
call many of the people listed above erudite scholars, to whom we can
turn to give us informed opinions and critiques on the artistic endeavor
that occassionally (very rarlely) makes it way into the form of a comic
book.
> The people cited above include several who were drawing long before
> Kirby's Marvel days, and many who were drawing before his Golden Age
> days, including Hogarth and Eisner (matter of fact, Kirby worked at
> Eisner's studio). And in a relatively small industry like the comic
> book industry, it would be practically impossible for top artists not
> to know each other. The claim that their opinions are invalid because
> they know Kirby is incredible bogus.
I didn't claim that they were invalid in and of themselves, merely
invalid as a basis for an appeal to authority. There is a difference
between treating comics as an artistic medium and treating it as a hobby.
> >My comment was *not* meant as trenchant commentary, only
> > a vulgar statement much like your exaggerated "brilliant, visionary and
> > inspirational" description (we're talking about an artist of superheroes
> > for Chrissakes)--maybe Ditko, but never Kirby.
> Again you demonstrate your ignorance. Kirby was not just an "artist of
> superheroes", he drew Westerns, romance comics (actually co-created the
> romance comic), horror comics, you know it.
Obviously I was incorrect, anybody giving us romance comics deserves the
description "brilliant, visionary and inspirational."
> Would you also dismiss
> Eisner as an "artist of superheroes" ?
No, why?
> Abhijit
Charles
re...@utdallas.edu
This might actually hurt the artists since it would be they that are
doing the selling.
Tom Galloway
>not intended as a serious artistic medium at the time? I would hardly
>call many of the people listed above erudite scholars, to whom we can
>turn to give us informed opinions and critiques on the artistic endeavor
>that occassionally (very rarlely) makes it way into the form of a comic book.
Gollllllleeee, them folk just don't have them fancy initials after thar
names. Shootfire, then of course they couldn't know squat about whether
someone's good in a field. Even if it's a field where they're active
participants, rather than "erudite scholars", so of course they'd not
have "informed opinions and critiques".
Or, to put it more succinctly, Reece, you're a clueless pompous twit who
apparently pays more attention to whether someone's papers look pretty
rather than whether they actually have a clue or are intelligent or
informed. So far, you've managed to show that you're pretty completely
ignorant...worse, you've shown that you're arrogant about your ignorance.
"Where do these people come from? Is there an agency out there that reads the
Net and says "oops, not enough morons on this newsgroup" and then assigns some
slack-jawed inbred grit-eatin' stooge to gum up the works?" --Jim Cowling
tyg t...@hq.ileaf.com
Four Weddings and an Elmo
> Only in America would someone mention sales record to the masses as an
> argument against ineptitude. Plus, if Kirby was such a hot property, why
> not go elsewhere (his own business, for one)?
Because there was no where else to go. This was an era in which corporate
slugs told creators that it was *illegal* for them to own copyrights. This
was an era in which the publishers owned or were related to the
distributors; it was a chummy little club that upstarts (like Tower and
Atlas) couldn't crack.
> Lance Visser (vis...@convex.com) wrote:
>> There is NO connection between the physical art and character
>> ownership in the law. Marvel decided to MAKE one by only returning
>> art to him if he signed a special unique to him legal document surrendering
>> a variety of rights which marvel claimed he did not have.
>
> More evidence is required for this accusation, it just doesn't make any
> sense. Surrender of what rights? I've heard no one challenge the belief
> that Kirby signed his rights to the characters away.
The concept of "work-for-hire" did not exist before 1978. The ownership
of most characters created before that time is suspect--witness Gerber's
suit against Marvel over ownership of Howard the Duck. (Shooter's
assertion that he could have ownership of fairly large hunks of the LSH,
including the profitable Karate Kid license, is based on another point
of law, however.)
Marvel and DC claim ownership of characters created for them even prior to
1978. Marvel was requiring Kirby to explicitly sign away his rights to
those characters even though they were also claiming that he had no rights
to the characters.
> Why didn't Kirby? It seems a great deal of speculation on everyone's
> part that wasn't there, which was my original intention of posting this
> stuff to begin with.
Kirby was a gentleman and felt no real urge to air his complaint with
Marvel in public.
> Marvel were ashamed to admit that someone stole from them? Sounds like
> it would have been a useful alibi to me.
It wasn't just stolen. It also was just given away to kids taking tours of
Lance Visser
+>> There is a difference between "dislike" of a particular artist
+>> or his style and calling that artist "inept" or claiming that "he was
+>> lucky to find a job anywhere".
+>I suppose it is possible to like ineptness (we do after all live in a
+>democracy). "Ineptness" was a judgement call on my part due to what I
+>view as Kirby's artistic intentions (e.g.three-dimensionality) and his
+>success, or lack thereof, at carrying them off (e.g. arms that look
+>grotesquely shortened, supposedly normal size people looking like giants,
+>lack of shadowing creating that "oh so accentuated" flat look).
So by your standards, any artist who gets Cartoony and doesn't
fixate on perfect human anatomy is "inept". That is not "inept", it is
a style. Realism is an ART STYLE, not the only valid standard
for what is or is not "inept" art.
+>The
+>second comment was hyperbole, dispensed with full knowledge that
+>populism, mixed with 2 parts capitalism will result in the lowest
+>estimate of probable talent everytime. To wit:
It was difficult to consider it Hyperbole when its preceeded
by a claim that the artist was inept.
>> You apparently know little of
>the history of comics
>if you > are making statements like "It seems he was lucky to find a job
>> anywhere."
>> +>You're confusing semantic knowledge with
>> +>aesthetics.
>>
>> I have no problem with people not liking Kirby or anyone
>> elses art or art style. I have a large problem with translating
>> dislike of a particular style into a comment that the artist
>> is "inept" and that he was lucky to even be hired. Especially
>> when the artist has the sales/track record from the 40's to
>> the early 70's that Kirby did.
+>Only in America would someone mention sales record to the masses as an
+>argument against ineptitude.
Strawman. You made two arguements. The first being that he
was inept. The second being that "he was lucky to find a job". The
second is a perfectly valid point to bring up his sales history on..
+>Plus, if Kirby was such a hot property, why
+>not go elsewhere (his own business, for one)?
Because there were only two major possibilities in the industry from
1960-1980. Either work for marvel or DC...or dont work.
Between 1958 and 1978, he worked for marvel and DC twice each.
When independent direct-market books started, he started writing creator-owned
books for Pacific.
Before 1978, it was impossible to enter the comics business without
millions of dollars in start-up capital. It was impossible to be a small
publisher in the business because there was nothing but newsstand distribution.
+>I think people romanticize
+>Kirby because of those boyhood days of collecting Fantastic Four or whatnot.
I think that other people knock Kirby because they are in love
with "realistic" art styles and can't believe that anyone could like
art that does not follow the Neal Adams rules of Anatomy.
+>> There is NO connection between the physical art and character
+>> ownership in the law. Marvel decided to MAKE one by only returning
+>> art to him if he signed a special unique to him legal document surrendering
+>> a variety of rights which marvel claimed he did not have.
+>> They were using the return of the art to extort surrender of
+>> rights from Kirby. They were in effect holding it hostage.
+>More evidence is required for this accusation, it just doesn't make any
+>sense. Surrender of what rights? I've heard no one challenge the belief
+>that Kirby signed his rights to the characters away.
Surrender of rights that marvel claimed he did not have.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The agreement (in part) was basically a retroactive work-for-hire
contract which would put kirby under post-1978 copyright law for
any conflicts with regard to the work.
>> +>Marvel does not need the artwork for anything (they gave it
>> +>back to other artists), yet they kept Kirby's. Either A) there is, in
>> +>fact, a legal connection between the physical artwork and the
>> +>characters. In which case, Marvel does have a stake in keeping the
>> +>artwork (this was my original, perhaps mistaken, assumption). Or B)
>> +>there is no connection and Marvel is keeping Kirby's artwork in
>> +>particular for no reason (other than they are dicks).
>> I dont believe there ever was a public reason given. Jim Shooter told
>> the fan press that there were "reasons", but he would not disclose
>> them. Part of the confusion on this whole issue is that marvel
>> never really tried to explain their behavior or the reasons behind it.
+>Why didn't Kirby?
Kirby explained everything he knew about the conflict in great
detail. Kirby can't read the corporate mind of marvel or come up with
reasons for what are doing.
+>It seems a great deal of speculation on everyone's
+>part that wasn't there, which was my original intention of posting this
+>stuff to begin with.
If you deal with corporations your going to discover that they
love ambiguity in situations like this. Shooter can run around saying
that "there are secret facts that the public doesn't know" and there
is no way to challenge him or marvel IF you REFUSE to believe that
what the other side in the dipute is saying is true.
+>> 2. Marvel had allowed much of the kirby art to be stolen from
+>> the marvel offices. They didn't have all that much art to
+>> return and were frightened of the questions that would be
+>> raised if they did return a very small amount of art.
+>> The inventory of the marvel art-vault in the late 70's leaked
+>> to the fan-press. A large amount of art disappeared between
+>> then and when marvel returned the art.
+>Marvel were ashamed to admit that someone stole from them? Sounds like
+>it would have been a useful alibi to me.
Not if people in responsible positions in the company knew about
the theft and participated in it. There are stories of people visiting
the marvel offices being given vault art.
+>> Why else would they come up with a unique kirby-only document that
+>> he had to sign surrendering various rights. No other artist was expected
+>> to sign the document that was presented to kirby.
+>The reasoning here sounds a bit like a conspiracist one often hears on
+>talk radio: "Why else...no other explanation...it HAD to have happened
+>just like this...."
Marvel had its chance to explain its behavior in the press. It
decided not to. When a company does not present its reasoning for
highly arbitrary behavior, what is to be done but to draw conclusions
based upon the facts presented by the other side.
Your logic seems to suggest that unless we have tapes of
decisions made in the marvel offices and copies of all the contracts
and a noterized statement by marvel's lawyers as to their intent,
that we can say nothing negative about marvel and refuse to be
cretical of their behavior.
The undisputed facts are that Kirby was given a legal document
to sign to get his art back that was unique to him. No other artist
who got work back had to sign that particular form. When he refused
to sign, marvel refused to return his art. Marvel demanded that he
sign before they even told him how much art they had.
+>Which, hyperbole aside, was the impetus for my
+>original post--i.e. Frank Miller's diatribe. I just have this thing
+>about attempting to debunk fanciful plots.
I suspect its more of a personal dislike for Kirby's art
that translates into a dislike for his side of other disputes.
You have yet to do much "debunking". All you have really done
is progressivly demand more and more information on the dispute.
As if ambiguity somehow exhonerates marvel from criticism based on
conduct.
Steve Lieber
I don't mean to be a wiseass when I write this, but Jesus, this has to be a
Usenet first. No Nazis, semantics or "agreeing to disagree?" I never knew a
thread could actually result in someone changing their views. Mazel Tov to
all concerned.
Lieber
ja...@lehigh.edu
for editing than the piece of junk in my Packard Bell.
J.A. Baylor
"Curious, but in no way indecipherable" -- The Fearless Vampire Killers
Jeff
> draw. (But then again, neither could Kirby, IMO)
I sympathise and agree with your view that Kirby gave away all rights to
his artwork when he cashed his paycheques and that he could theoretically
have published independently. Let's calm down and look at his position
humanely, though: a middle-aged man with a family to support in the
1960s can't just start going off in some low-paying artsy-fartsy self-
publishing experiment, eh. He had an *obligation* to work at Marvel.
Of course, you could always counterpoint and say "it was his choice to
have a family", and there we are.
Saying that Kirby couldn't draw makes you look very, very foolish. You
may not like his finished art style, but you obviously don't understand
the fundamentals of storytelling he invented.
> As well they shouldn't. What the hell did his family have to do with his
> creative process.
Kirby's art and stories were based on his life experiences, and I have a
hunch that raising a family just might be considered as a "life experience".
Roz Kirby is also said to have inked some of his pages, too! And, of
course, he did a lot of artwork at home, so he was surrounded by his
family while his creative process was happening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF HILDERLEY jeff.hi...@sheridanc.on.ca
An Illustration student at Sheridan College in Oakville, Ontario, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------------
re...@utdallas.edu
> +>> There is a difference between "dislike" of a particular artist
> +>> or his style and calling that artist "inept" or claiming that "he was
> +>> lucky to find a job anywhere".
> +>I suppose it is possible to like ineptness (we do after all live in a
> +>democracy). "Ineptness" was a judgement call on my part due to what I
> +>view as Kirby's artistic intentions (e.g.three-dimensionality) and his
> +>success, or lack thereof, at carrying them off (e.g. arms that look
> +>grotesquely shortened, supposedly normal size people looking like giants,
> +>lack of shadowing creating that "oh so accentuated" flat look).
> So by your standards, any artist who gets Cartoony and doesn't
> fixate on perfect human anatomy is "inept". That is not "inept", it is
> a style. Realism is an ART STYLE, not the only valid standard
> for what is or is not "inept" art.
Realism is not what I was using as a "criterion", my point had more to do
with Kirby's attempt to put something forth in his work and his not
succeeding. I feel that Kirby violates the logic he has set up for
himself. Kirby's artwork comes across as an inability to draw
realistically not as a revolt against it. The latter is what I
appreciate most about many comic book artists. I am aware, however, that
appreciation of an art style has much to with interpretation--i.e.
"discovery" of the logic and then appreciation of this "discovery."
Kirby had, maybe, 3 poses which he continually used till his death. You
might call it minimalism, I call it stagnation.
> +>The
> +>second comment was hyperbole, dispensed with full knowledge that
> +>populism, mixed with 2 parts capitalism will result in the lowest
> +>estimate of probable talent everytime. To wit:
> It was difficult to consider it Hyperbole when its preceeded
> by a claim that the artist was inept.
Only if you misconstue my comment as an argument. No where did I give
any semblance of propositions to back up my claims. It was a flippant
remark that I didn't think would be that contentious in this newsgroup.
> >> You apparently know little of
> >the history of comics
> >if you > are making statements like "It seems he was lucky to find a job
> >> anywhere."
> >> +>You're confusing semantic knowledge with
> >> +>aesthetics.
> >>
> >> I have no problem with people not liking Kirby or anyone
> >> elses art or art style. I have a large problem with translating
> >> dislike of a particular style into a comment that the artist
> >> is "inept" and that he was lucky to even be hired. Especially
> >> when the artist has the sales/track record from the 40's to
> >> the early 70's that Kirby did.
> +>Only in America would someone mention sales record to the masses as an
> +>argument against ineptitude.
> Strawman. You made two arguements. The first being that he
> was inept. The second being that "he was lucky to find a job". The
> second is a perfectly valid point to bring up his sales history on..
If you interpreted my comments as anything, they would be propositions.
Parts of an argument, and nothing more.
> +>Plus, if Kirby was such a hot property, why
> +>not go elsewhere (his own business, for one)?
> Because there were only two major possibilities in the industry from
> 1960-1980. Either work for marvel or DC...or dont work.
Again, he could have gone underground. The question is whether he was
content being where he was at *at that time*. I find it a bit
disingenuous to set Kirby up as a starving artist who would do anything
for his craft, including working for the Great Beast.
> Between 1958 and 1978, he worked for marvel and DC twice each.
> When independent direct-market books started, he started writing creator-owned
> books for Pacific.
> Before 1978, it was impossible to enter the comics business without
> millions of dollars in start-up capital. It was impossible to be a small
> publisher in the business because there was nothing but newsstand
> distribution.
> +>I think people romanticize
> +>Kirby because of those boyhood days of collecting Fantastic Four or whatnot.
> I think that other people knock Kirby because they are in love
> with "realistic" art styles and can't believe that anyone could like
> art that does not follow the Neal Adams rules of Anatomy.
Or, they like an artist capable of variety that is attempting to
continually push the envelope within the parameters he has set for himself.
True enough, and you choose to believe Kirby.
> +>> 2. Marvel had allowed much of the kirby art to be stolen from
> +>> the marvel offices. They didn't have all that much art to
> +>> return and were frightened of the questions that would be
> +>> raised if they did return a very small amount of art.
> +>> The inventory of the marvel art-vault in the late 70's leaked
> +>> to the fan-press. A large amount of art disappeared between
> +>> then and when marvel returned the art.
> +>Marvel were ashamed to admit that someone stole from them? Sounds like
> +>it would have been a useful alibi to me.
> Not if people in responsible positions in the company knew about
> the theft and participated in it. There are stories of people visiting
> the marvel offices being given vault art.
> +>> Why else would they come up with a unique kirby-only document that
> +>> he had to sign surrendering various rights. No other artist was expected
> +>> to sign the document that was presented to kirby.
> +>The reasoning here sounds a bit like a conspiracist one often hears on
> +>talk radio: "Why else...no other explanation...it HAD to have happened
> +>just like this...."
> Marvel had its chance to explain its behavior in the press. It
> decided not to. When a company does not present its reasoning for
> highly arbitrary behavior, what is to be done but to draw conclusions
> based upon the facts presented by the other side.
How about not taking an absolutist stance?
> Your logic seems to suggest that unless we have tapes of
> decisions made in the marvel offices and copies of all the contracts
> and a noterized statement by marvel's lawyers as to their intent,
> that we can say nothing negative about marvel and refuse to be
> cretical of their behavior.
No, it means that you shouldn't demonize one of the parties involved in a
specific contract if you are not sure of what is contained in the
contract.
> The undisputed facts are that Kirby was given a legal document
> to sign to get his art back that was unique to him. No other artist
> who got work back had to sign that particular form. When he refused
> to sign, marvel refused to return his art. Marvel demanded that he
> sign before they even told him how much art they had.
Are you suggesting that Marvel would have returned the art had he signed
the contract? One point that I've been soundly refuted on (I forget by
whom) is that Kirby signed away his rights to the physical art (you've
got me on the run), but it seems sensible that Marvel would wish to
protect the rights to the characters involved since Kirby had a large
part to play in the invention of many of them. Therefore if Kirby had
signed an earlier contract upon being hired by Marvel that gave his
claim to these characters, Marvel was justified in the changing times to
"update" their claim. You'll get no argument from me if you say that
Marvel handled this badly, but you will get one if your position is one
of "Marvel has no claim to these characters"--which seemed to be driving
Miller's essay (I'll have to recheck this to be sure, though).
re...@utdallas.edu
> Oh, sorry about postoring (posturing)--I'm still trying to get a better modem
> for editing than the piece of junk in my Packard Bell.
Whadaya know? I must be psychic. Too bad you didn't catch your other
mistake Mr. Grammar, now you look like a "fool". Ho Ho Ho, do I ever feel
superior. This must be just like the epiphany you experienced after
"deconstructing" my "argument."
> J.A. Baylor
> "Curious, but in no way indecipherable" -- The Fearless Vampire Killers
I say you get the last word in this thread. I lost the argument (the
actual one) a time ago, so you feel free to psychoanalyze all you want.
You'll get no more name calling from me. Still friends? :-)
toodles,
Charles
ja...@lehigh.edu
>second comment was hyperbole, dispensed with full knowledge that
>
critical style exactly. I suppose that Kirby was a major figure in comic art
has nothing to do with his being looked upon as an industry icon (and yes, it
is an industry--that's how he could afford to do the work). I am glad to see
that you can couch your oh so pointed remarks behind vocabulary and sly
alternative comments about democracy when that has little to do with the
subject at hand, other than hiding weak reasoning behind a veneer of verbal
legerdemain (oooh, big woids). I suppose your witticisms about population
are supposed to bon mot you past the fact that he was stomping your ass,
argument-wise.
>
>Only in America would someone mention sales record to the masses as an
>not go elsewhere (his own business, for one)? I think people romanticize
>Kirby because of those boyhood days of collecting Fantastic Four or whatnot.
>
oeuvre while working at something not then considered an art-form.
Strangely, I didn't read any Kirby stuff until I started buying comic books at
age twenty. And no, you do not think.
>Marvel were ashamed to admit that someone stole from them? Sounds like
>it would have been a useful alibi to me.
>
Marvel "were"? They were what: plural??
>original post--i.e. Frank Miller's diatribe. I just have this thing
>about attempting to debunk fanciful plots.
>
As do I with debunking poor use of reasoning and language. Somehow, I think
the most telling point is that actual comics artists revere what Kirby did.
ja...@lehigh.edu
>> "inept" and that "he was lucky to find a job anywhere."
>
>It is an example of an indirect speech act. It is assumed that people do
>not refer to things that they favor as "inept." (Methinks I might've
>assumed too much--a certain Frenchman warned me as much.) I will grant
>you that it was a bit hyperbolic and did exaggerate my point (perhaps a
>bit too much). Next time I'll include a warning label.
>
Frenchman--gosh, how continental; Reece knows archaic wordforms like
"methinks"--wow, how very learned; Reece says hyperbolic again, and then
assumes that he must explain that it's exaggeration to prove his point (a bit
too much)--wow, when did he prove any point; and, garwsh, Ahm sure glad he's
gonna wurn us hicks and stupes the next time he uses them indirect speech
thingies. God, I hope you weren't an English major. I'd have to rethink my
priorities, and possibly quit teaching.
>>-That- is what shows ignorance of comics.
>
>At most, it demonstrates an ignorance of certain technical skills that
>Kirby possessed that I remain unaware of. In fairness, I will stipulate
>my ignorance of the "Golden Age." Perhaps, Kirby began going through the
>motions after the comics code?
>
I suppose that means those darned ancient artists are inept by your standards
for their non-use of perspective. It's sure good that you're aware of
technical skills that probably didn't apply to comic art in Kirby's day
(that's sarcasm, for all you dumb shits out there). I'm glad you admit
ignorance, although it should probably be extended through the "Silver Age"
and mayhaps (look you dumb bastards, an archaic word form) the next century.
If going through the motions means helping to invent an entire comics line and
influencing dozens of artists, sure.
>I am aware of Kirby's popularity among the comicratti. However, I've
>never heard any good arguments or critiques of Kirby's artistic skill.
Ah, the thinker annihilates his opponents with a witty label, not realizing
though that he wouldn't recognize a good argument if he saw, read or heard
one, since he's obviously copying bad criticism, bad debate, and bad
linguistic examples.
>The majority of the others are friends of Kirby's.
In other words, if you have fans who admire your work, don't befriend them.
No, the artist must remain aloof.
>I am not so sure that they are the best people to ask for an informed
>critique.
Of course not. Let's ask you for an assuredly uninformed one.
>(It's a bit like my saying "Twisted Sister suck!" and you proffer some
>rejoinder like "Well, Motley Crue and Ratt like 'em.")
The thinker compares the lowly comic book hack to another, assumed lowly
target. Ha, by association he has shown the true meaning of all this verbage.
We are too stupid to realize we're as disgusting and ignorant as those dirty,
little metal heads that used to beat him up in high school.
>My comment was *not* meant as trenchant commentary,
And shall not be taken as such.
>only a vulgar statement much like your exaggerated "brilliant, visionary and
>inspirational" description (we're talking about an artist of superheroes
>for Chrissakes)--maybe Ditko, but never Kirby.
The thinker pauses and sighs. These poor idiots just don't understand the
joke. Why, I'm so far above them that my droll comments have upset them. But
maybe I'll show some basic knowledge about what we're speaking, showing that I
do possess an aesthetic tolerance for the "little art" of comics. Let's see,
I think a Ditko will do it.
>I admit my culpability in including some off-handed remark about Kirby
>leading all his fans to unite. I rescind my tacky statement with the
>hope that comments will return to focus on the ownership of the art.
A, a superior retreat--safe in his convictions, and that fans of comics are
all uncouth louts who know nothing of the cloud-dwelling elite, the weary
aesthete retires, safe in the knowledge that among the insects in the dirt are
no readers of literature, no sophisticates enjoying theatre (and spelling
things in a British manner), no illuminated supporters of true art,
intellectual debate. He pats the edge of wit and sniffs, almost guilty over
the sound trouncing he gave those peasants, those dullards, those proles.
He is, of course, not aware that the strange noise assailing his humorless
ears is laughter.
Mark Schlesinger
> > Elliot, Joyce, Shakespeare, et al. ... All idiots, because they couldn't
> > draw. (But then again, neither could Kirby, IMO)
>
>
> Saying that Kirby couldn't draw makes you look very, very foolish. You
> may not like his finished art style, but you obviously don't understand
> the fundamentals of storytelling he invented.
>
For a good, quick display of Kirby's storytelling check out
Instant Piano #3. Kyle Baker does a good 1 page disection of the Kirby's
storytelling ability.
--
Mark Schlesinger If I had any opinions...They'd be mine!!!
schl...@dg0daztcn.wr.usgs.gov
mitch_goldman
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.95030...@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>, Jeff <hild...@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
writes:
> > > Elliot, Joyce, Shakespeare, et al. ... All idiots, because they couldn't
> > > draw. (But then again, neither could Kirby, IMO)
> >
> <stuff deleted>
> >
> > Saying that Kirby couldn't draw makes you look very, very foolish. You
> > may not like his finished art style, but you obviously don't understand
> > the fundamentals of storytelling he invented.
> >
>
> For a good, quick display of Kirby's storytelling check out
> Instant Piano #3. Kyle Baker does a good 1 page disection of the Kirby's
> storytelling ability.
I hate to even jump in at this point, but isn't it enough that
Kirby's art represented some of the clearest, most CONCISE
storytelling in comics? Look at the convoluted, fanboyish, garish
art that dominates comics today, and look at Kirby's stuff...
it's not the flashiest, most colorful art, but it told the story in
a way that was effective and illustrative.
A lot of today's arrogant artists (listen up Todd McFarlane)
could take a tip from the simplicity of Kirby's style.
Mitch
________________________________________
"Everybody's an authority
In a free land"
Husker Du, "In a Free Land"
________________________________________
re...@utdallas.edu
> >> Reece, you didn't say that you didn't like his work, you said that it was
> >> "inept" and that "he was lucky to find a job anywhere."
> >
> >It is an example of an indirect speech act. It is assumed that people do
> >not refer to things that they favor as "inept." (Methinks I might've
> >assumed too much--a certain Frenchman warned me as much.) I will grant
> >you that it was a bit hyperbolic and did exaggerate my point (perhaps a
> >bit too much). Next time I'll include a warning label.
> >
> More intellectual postoring on a topic relating to comics:
I just bet since you railed against me on your last post that you're
just insecure enough to think that I might nail you for this little faux
pas. The world waits in anticipation.
Reece knows a
> Frenchman--gosh, how continental; Reece knows archaic wordforms like
> "methinks"--wow, how very learned; Reece says hyperbolic again, and then
> assumes that he must explain that it's exaggeration to prove his point (a bit
> too much)--wow, when did he prove any point; and, garwsh, Ahm sure glad he's
> gonna wurn us hicks and stupes the next time he uses them indirect speech
> thingies.
How about it was a jocular--albeit sarcastic--post, meant to be taken
with tongue planted firmly in place? But, Captain Everyman has a point
to make. He's going to show all the commoners that he's just like them,
except smarter. He can match wits with the evil Dr. Verbiage,
whereas they can only call for his help. I'm sure everyone truly
appreciates you.
God, I hope you weren't an English major. I'd have to rethink my
> priorities, and possibly quit teaching.
> >>-That- is what shows ignorance of comics.
> >
> >At most, it demonstrates an ignorance of certain technical skills that
> >Kirby possessed that I remain unaware of. In fairness, I will stipulate
> >my ignorance of the "Golden Age." Perhaps, Kirby began going through the
> >motions after the comics code?
> >
> I suppose that means those darned ancient artists are inept by your standards
> for their non-use of perspective. It's sure good that you're aware of
> technical skills that probably didn't apply to comic art in Kirby's day
> (that's sarcasm, for all you dumb shits out there). I'm glad you admit
> ignorance, although it should probably be extended through the "Silver Age"
> and mayhaps (look you dumb bastards, an archaic word form) the next century.
> If going through the motions means helping to invent an entire comics line and
> influencing dozens of artists, sure.
Of course, I always gave a qualifier before any disparaging remarks that
I've made (e.g. "Kirby..."). How you make the jump to the entire field,
I'm not sure. It is consistent with your style of destroying straw-men,
though.
> >I am aware of Kirby's popularity among the comicratti. However, I've
> >never heard any good arguments or critiques of Kirby's artistic skill.
> Ah, the thinker annihilates his opponents with a witty label, not realizing
> though that he wouldn't recognize a good argument if he saw, read or heard
> one, since he's obviously copying bad criticism, bad debate, and bad
> linguistic examples.
Do tell, Sigmund, do tell.
> >The majority of the others are friends of Kirby's.
> In other words, if you have fans who admire your work, don't befriend them.
> No, the artist must remain aloof.
> >I am not so sure that they are the best people to ask for an informed
> >critique.
> Of course not. Let's ask you for an assuredly uninformed one.
> >(It's a bit like my saying "Twisted Sister suck!" and you proffer some
> >rejoinder like "Well, Motley Crue and Ratt like 'em.")
> The thinker compares the lowly comic book hack to another, assumed lowly
> target. Ha, by association he has shown the true meaning of all this verbage.
"Aha!" Dr. Verbiage thinks, "my opponent will fail, because he doesn't
even know the true name of his arch-enemy. He must be actually a
peasant, posing as an intellectual by his own standards."
> We are too stupid to realize we're as disgusting and ignorant as those dirty,
> little metal heads that used to beat him up in high school.
Hey, some of my best friends were metal heads. Whadaya think kept me
from acquiring the vast knowledge that you obviously possess?
> >My comment was *not* meant as trenchant commentary,
> And shall not be taken as such.
Then why are we still discussing it? Perhaps Sigmund is anally fixated?
> >only a vulgar statement much like your exaggerated "brilliant, visionary and
> >inspirational" description (we're talking about an artist of superheroes
> >for Chrissakes)--maybe Ditko, but never Kirby.
> The thinker pauses and sighs. These poor idiots just don't understand the
> joke. Why, I'm so far above them that my droll comments have upset them. But
> maybe I'll show some basic knowledge about what we're speaking, showing that I
> do possess an aesthetic tolerance for the "little art" of comics. Let's see,
> I think a Ditko will do it.
Ever thought of joining the X-men? They need a replacement for Jean Grey.
> >I admit my culpability in including some off-handed remark about Kirby
> >leading all his fans to unite. I rescind my tacky statement with the
> >hope that comments will return to focus on the ownership of the art.
> A, a superior retreat--safe in his convictions, and that fans of comics are
> all uncouth louts who know nothing of the cloud-dwelling elite, the weary
> aesthete retires, safe in the knowledge that among the insects in the dirt are
> no readers of literature, no sophisticates enjoying theatre (and spelling
> things in a British manner), no illuminated supporters of true art,
> intellectual debate. He pats the edge of wit and sniffs, almost guilty over
> the sound trouncing he gave those peasants, those dullards, those proles.
'Prole,' eh? At least reading your sanctimoninous liberal rant payed
off, I learned a new word. (Look! He's admitting a weakness...Attack!
Attack!)
> He is, of course, not aware that the strange noise assailing his humorless
> ears is laughter.
How poetic. I got the warm-and-fuzzies.
> J.A. Baylor
> "Curious, but in no way indecipherable" -- The Fearless Vampire Killers
Charles
re...@utdallas.edu
> Lieber
Thanks, yet (for some reason) the beat goes on...
Charles
re...@utdallas.edu
> In article <3j2p0f$b...@utdallas.edu>, <re...@utdallas.edu> wrote:
> >not intended as a serious artistic medium at the time? I would hardly
> >call many of the people listed above erudite scholars, to whom we can
> >turn to give us informed opinions and critiques on the artistic endeavor
> >that occassionally (very rarlely) makes it way into the form of a comic book.
One has to create drek to label it as such? ("What? Reece calls all of
comicdom drek...blah, blah, blah.") I suppose you think we should turn to
Romance novelists to give us their opinions on the level of artistry
involved in their work as well. ("What? Now Reece says we're no better
than the pathetic Romance novelists.")
> Gollllllleeee, them folk just don't have them fancy initials after thar
> names. Shootfire, then of course they couldn't know squat about whether
> someone's good in a field. Even if it's a field where they're active
> participants, rather than "erudite scholars", so of course they'd not
> have "informed opinions and critiques".
Evidently, my suppostion is correct. Merely participating in some field
neither makes nor precludes one from being an expert to which others
might get informed opinions about that field. Some
of the artists named strike me as being too damned talented (e.g. Moebius
and Eisner) not to have a trustworthy opinion on the artistic merits of
Kirby's work, but many of them were hack artists whom I wouldn't turn to
when in doubt. (And to paraphrase Maggie or Don Thompson, being a hack
isn't, and wasn't, a bad thing, it was merely getting the job done on
time.)
> Or, to put it more succinctly, Reece, you're a clueless pompous twit
Harumpf, harumpf. Why, AAh never...! Sah, I do believe you are
tryin' to offend me.
> who
> apparently pays more attention to whether someone's papers look pretty
> rather than whether they actually have a clue or are intelligent or
> informed. So far, you've managed to show that you're pretty completely
> ignorant...worse, you've shown that you're arrogant about your ignorance.
nyah! nyah! nyah!
> "Where do these people come from? Is there an agency out there that reads the
> Net and says "oops, not enough morons on this newsgroup" and then assigns some
> slack-jawed inbred grit-eatin' stooge to gum up the works?" --Jim Cowling
> tyg t...@hq.ileaf.com
Love,
Charles
re...@utdallas.edu
> > Elliot, Joyce, Shakespeare, et al. ... All idiots, because they couldn't
> > draw. (But then again, neither could Kirby, IMO)
> I sympathise and agree with your view that Kirby gave away all rights to
> his artwork when he cashed his paycheques and that he could theoretically
> have published independently. Let's calm down and look at his position
> humanely, though: a middle-aged man with a family to support in the
> 1960s can't just start going off in some low-paying artsy-fartsy self-
> publishing experiment, eh. He had an *obligation* to work at Marvel.
> Of course, you could always counterpoint and say "it was his choice to
> have a family", and there we are.
Ahh, some people are too reasonable. No disagreement so far.
> Saying that Kirby couldn't draw makes you look very, very foolish. You
> may not like his finished art style, but you obviously don't understand
> the fundamentals of storytelling he invented.
I tend to find very little flow in Kirby's art from panel to panel. It
is true that Kirby invented an art style, but was the one that now
populates the market with muscled up heroes posturing on every page. I
found it derivative (from book to book) when Kirby did it and I find it
derivative now when others (you know who) do it. I admit that
credit goes to Kirby.
> > As well they shouldn't. What the hell did his family have to do with his
> > creative process.
Ouch! Too many steroids these days.
> Kirby's art and stories were based on his life experiences, and I have a
> hunch that raising a family just might be considered as a "life experience".
> Roz Kirby is also said to have inked some of his pages, too! And, of
> course, he did a lot of artwork at home, so he was surrounded by his
> family while his creative process was happening.
Fair enough.
Charles
ML Compton
In a previous article, re...@utdallas.edu () says:
>>, even if he only planned to use it for toilet paper.
>> (Of course, IMHO, if Stan Lee was such the genius that he claims to
>> be, then why didn't he draw the damn comics.)
>Elliot, Joyce, Shakespeare, et al. ... All idiots, because they couldn't
>draw. (But then again, neither could Kirby, IMO)
'In your opinion' is right. You're presenting an idiotic arguement here.
I'd like to see who you regard as great comic book artists before I continue
with this. I'm willing to bet that almost anyone you list will name Kirby
as an influence.
--
-- ML COMPTON / SWINGIN' DANGLERS
"Once again, we find that clowning and anarchy don't mix."
-The Tick, Super Hero, 1995
re...@utdallas.edu
Michael Cherkas
Dave McKean
Bill Sienk...(I'm not going to try)
Frank Miller (Kirby was an influence)
Geof Darrow
Steve Ditko (yes, I really like him)
off the top of my head.
Charles
Jez Higgins
> Before 1978, it was impossible to enter the comics business without
> millions of dollars in start-up capital. It was impossible to be a small
> publisher in the business because there was nothing but newsstand distribution.
>
surely didn't have a million dollars.
So call me a pedant.
--
Jez Higgins
j...@lenken.demon.co.uk
ja...@lehigh.edu
>> >not refer to things that they favor as "inept." (Methinks I might've
>> >assumed too much--a certain Frenchman warned me as much.) I will grant
>> >you that it was a bit hyperbolic and did exaggerate my point (perhaps a
>> >bit too much). Next time I'll include a warning label.
>> >
>> More intellectual postoring on a topic relating to comics:
>
>I just bet since you railed against me on your last post that you're
>just insecure enough to think that I might nail you for this little faux
>pas. The world waits in anticipation.
No, I was just waitin for you to get something correct.
>
>Reece knows a
>> Frenchman--gosh, how continental; Reece knows archaic wordforms like
>> "methinks"--wow, how very learned; Reece says hyperbolic again, and then
>> assumes that he must explain that it's exaggeration to prove his point (a bit
>> too much)--wow, when did he prove any point; and, garwsh, Ahm sure glad he's
>> gonna wurn us hicks and stupes the next time he uses them indirect speech
>> thingies.
>
>How about it was a jocular--albeit sarcastic--post, meant to be taken
>with tongue planted firmly in place? But, Captain Everyman has a point
>to make. He's going to show all the commoners that he's just like them,
>except smarter. He can match wits with the evil Dr. Verbiage,
>whereas they can only call for his help. I'm sure everyone truly
>appreciates you.
No, it was a heavy handed, unnecessary post. Your tongue would have had to be
buried in someone else's cheek. No, I don't speek for everyone else. Just
against you.
>
>Of course, I always gave a qualifier before any disparaging remarks that
>I've made (e.g. "Kirby..."). How you make the jump to the entire field,
>I'm not sure. It is consistent with your style of destroying straw-men,
>though.
Yes, and how very useful that was when it didn't have anything to do with the
original topic. Thanks, bunches.
ja...@lehigh.edu
>
must prove that you're superior, even if you don't say anything substantial,
or ignore some of my comments because you can't refute them--like the
following:
>> >The majority of the others are friends of Kirby's.
>
>> In other words, if you have fans who admire your work, don't befriend them.
>> No, the artist must remain aloof.
>
>> >I am not so sure that they are the best people to ask for an informed
>> >critique.
>
>> Of course not. Let's ask you for an assuredly uninformed one.
>
>> >(It's a bit like my saying "Twisted Sister suck!" and you proffer some
>> >rejoinder like "Well, Motley Crue and Ratt like 'em.")
>
>> The thinker compares the lowly comic book hack to another, assumed lowly
>> target. Ha, by association he has shown the true meaning of all this verbage
Oh, well, we go on.
>"Aha!" Dr. Verbiage thinks, "my opponent will fail, because he doesn't
>even know the true name of his arch-enemy. He must be actually a
>peasant, posing as an intellectual by his own standards."
Interesting that you should frame this like a Kirby story. Too bad he was
just a hack.
>Hey, some of my best friends were metal heads. Whadaya think kept me
>from acquiring the vast knowledge that you obviously possess?
>
Too bad your best friends beat you up.
>> >My comment was *not* meant as trenchant commentary,
>
>> And shall not be taken as such.
>
>Then why are we still discussing it? Perhaps Sigmund is anally fixated?
>
Because you thought it suitable to post publically. Do you always put anal
analysis public?
>
>> The thinker pauses and sighs. These poor idiots just don't understand the
>> joke. Why, I'm so far above them that my droll comments have upset them. Bu
t
>> maybe I'll show some basic knowledge about what we're speaking, showing that
I
>> do possess an aesthetic tolerance for the "little art" of comics. Let's see,
>> I think a Ditko will do it.
>
>Ever thought of joining the X-men? They need a replacement for Jean Grey.
>
Oh, you read Marvel. That explains a lot.
>> >I admit my culpability in including some off-handed remark about Kirby
>> >leading all his fans to unite. I rescind my tacky statement with the
>> >hope that comments will return to focus on the ownership of the art.
>
>> A, a superior retreat--safe in his convictions, and that fans of comics are
>> all uncouth louts who know nothing of the cloud-dwelling elite, the weary
>> aesthete retires, safe in the knowledge that among the insects in the dirt ar
e
>> no readers of literature, no sophisticates enjoying theatre (and spelling
>> things in a British manner), no illuminated supporters of true art,
>> intellectual debate. He pats the edge of wit and sniffs, almost guilty over
>> the sound trouncing he gave those peasants, those dullards, those proles.
>
>'Prole,' eh? At least reading your sanctimoninous liberal rant payed
>off, I learned a new word. (Look! He's admitting a weakness...Attack!
>Attack!)
>
I'm a liberal.... whoo ... thank god I know you kiss Limbaugh's butt you
purgative little nazi toad.
>
>> He is, of course, not aware that the strange noise assailing his humorless
>> ears is laughter.
>
>How poetic. I got the warm-and-fuzzies.
>
I suppose you always do.